Why Gay Marriage and Women’s Rights Are Critical for the Elections

First things first. I am a heterosexual male and for most of my life have never really paid much attention to the rights of gay people or women. It simply didn’t impact me. But over time I have come to realize that even specific issues like gay marriage or a woman’s right to choose are not really about their status as being gay or female but about being denied the basic rights and respect that all humans deserve.

These past few weeks, Chick-fil-A has hogged the limelight with the anti-gay marriage stance of its president, but on the other side of this issue have been public figures like Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and Bill Gates of Microsoft. It is telling that the latter are all pioneering visionaries who have contributed to the advancement of our society. As usual, they are looking ahead.

The presidential elections of 2012 are understandably all about the economy. Without paychecks, few of us can afford to think about anything else and this includes both genders and all sexual orientations. But human rights are not a luxury that we can afford to forget about at times of crisis, but a necessary foundation of a prosperous society. Without food on the table we might go hungry but without human rights, our satiated appetites will mean nothing. In other words, just because times are tough does not mean that we should sweep issues like gay marriage or a woman’s right to choose under the carpet when picking our president for the next four years.

Barack Obama’s positions on these fronts are pretty clear. His recent statement on gay marriage was decisive and unambiguous. There is no doubt that he could do more, but so far he has not done badly; and what energy he has diverted into things like universal healthcare is also directed at preserving human dignity.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown an appalling lack of empathy with the gay population and with women on issues that are most important to them.

On gay marriage, his position leaves me scratching my head. Though he says that he is committed to the rights of all people and supports some types of same-sex unions, he defends marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. Since Romney himself subscribes to a faith that is often the target of prejudice, I believe that he is genuine about wanting equal rights for all. But his stance on the issue of marriage shows that he does not get the importance of that label for the gay community. It is not just about joint finances or health insurance, but about being granted equal status in society and being treated no differently than a heterosexual couple. By saying that same-sex unions are fine but gay marriages are not, Romney is inadvertently segregating the gay community from the rest of so-called “normal” society. It may be a subtle difference but one that impedes the progress of gay rights and encourages discrimination.

When it comes to women, Romney has said that he is “pro-opportunity for women, pro-moms, pro-working moms, pro-working women”, but his positions don’t support this. On average, American women earn 23 percent less than their male counterparts, yet Romney has been mostly silent on this issue, refusing to commit himself to the Paycheck Fairness Act advanced by Democrats and agreeing only not to repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, both of which are designed to end economic discrimination against women.

Even on abortion, he is on the wrong side of the issue, publicly stating that he believes the Supreme Court should overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling — which affirms a woman’s legal right to an abortion. His track record is worse: as governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill designed to provide emergency contraceptives to victims of rape; and he endorsed the (eventually defeated) Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which would have allowed employers to exclude birth control from insurance coverage due to “moral objections.” As in the case of his stance on gay marriage, Romney’s views result in the separation of women from the rest of society in terms of their rights and freedoms.

His unwillingness (or maybe inability) to recognize the harmful effects of his positions shows just how disconnected he is from the people. A candidate running for the presidency of a nation that was born out of an absolute belief in equal rights does not campaign on the basis of exclusion. Romney may say that he is against discrimination but his choices and actions are what define his real position. I know that he is a conservative but he is a conservative living in the 21st century, when social mores and attitudes have evolved dramatically. A sensible candidate would embrace this evolution and help propel it further, not retard its progress.

Ironically though, Romney’s problem is not his sexual orientation, the color of his skin, or his gender, but his privileged background. His wealth has both insulated and isolated him from the masses, preventing him from being able to grasp the realities of his society and from being able to empathize with the majority of Americans. Even just on economic issues, his support of tax cuts for the rich during a time of recession and ballooning deficits, his opposition to infrastructure development and public sector spending at a time of high unemployment, his support of subsidies for corporations that mistreat workers and ravage our environment, not to mention his stubborn refusal to release his tax returns, all demonstrate a cluelessness that would be even more dangerous in the White House.

So, whether you are a crusader for human rights or concerned primarily with the economy, gay marriage and women’s economic and reproductive rights should be of paramount importance to you in these coming elections, for Romney’s positions on these issues tell you a lot about who he is, and illustrate his apathy towards the most important founding principles of our democracy: fairness and equality. Also keep in mind that in the end we are all just one honest step away from taking a stand or being true to ourselves that can alienate us from society and invite judgment. Just ask Harvey Milk or Gloria Steinem.

Finally, if you still feel that nothing but the economy should matter, here are some sobering facts:

1. Just one year after enacting the Marriage Equality Act, New York City has seen a positive economic impact from the law of $259 million. Now imagine what could happen if gay marriage was the norm nationwide.
2. The loss in income for women due to pay inequality adds up to an average of $383,000 over a lifetime. That is $383,000 of lost buying power for almost half the population of the United States; not to mention that (forgive the stereotype) women are major influencers of buying decisions and often big shoppers.

Yep, preventing gays from marrying and holding women back are definitely helping our economy.

Please visit Sanjay’s website at www.sanghoee.com for more information and updates.

<!–

Books by this author

–>

This Blogger’s Books from

Follow Sanjay Sanghoee on Twitter:

www.twitter.com/sanghoee

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/romney-gay-marriage-womens-rights_b_1728002.html?utm_hp_ref=barack-obama

Louis Peitzman

• View Profile
• Email
• Facebook
• Twitter
• RSS

Groundbreaking gay author, screenwriter, political essayist, and playwright Gore Vidal died Tuesday at age 86, as reported on his official website.

Vidal’s legacy includes penning The City and the Pillar, one of the first mainstream American novels to feature overtly gay characters. He is commonly regarded as an important figure in LGBT representation and sexual liberation.

Throughout his career, he continued to incorporate gay themes. In the documentary The Celluloid Closet, Vidal admitted he had added overt homosexual subtext to his screenplay for Ben-Hur.

Vidal was also a prolific and controversial political activist. He was a member of the leftwing World Can’t Wait organization and advocated the impeachment of George W. Bush.

Vidal’s other works include the novels Myra Breckenridge, Lincoln, and Burr; his memoir Palimpsest; and the screenplays for Suddenly, Last Summer, Is Paris Burning, and Caligula. A revival of his play The Best Man is currently running on Broadway.

[Image via AP]

Article source: http://gawker.com/5930733/iconic-gay-author-gore-vidal-dies-at-86

U.S. sprinter Tyson Gay is getting a
shot at redemption in the London Olympics.

The 29-year-old has run the 100 faster than any American,
and his time of 9.69 seconds has been bettered only by defending
Olympic champion Usain Bolt.

Bolt eased up to win the gold medal in world-record time at
Beijing four years ago. Gay, a three-time world champion, didn’t
even make the start line.

“There’s a lot of pressure, I’m not going to lie,� Gay
said at a news conference today organized by his sponsor Adidas.
“I really want to redeem myself.�

Gay hurt his hamstring at the U.S. trials before the 2008
Beijing Games. That meant he couldn’t perform in the 200 meters
and arrived without any race training before starting the 100-
meter competition, where he was eliminated in the semifinals,
running 10.05. He won the 100 in the U.S. trials a month earlier
in a wind-assisted 9.68 seconds.

Gay’s chances of adding an Olympic medal to his collection
then evaporated when he and Davis Patton had a mix-up in the
heat stage of the 400-meter relay.

Gay clocked his quickest allowed 100-meter time a year
later at the 2009 world championships, good for second place
behind Bolt. The 25-year-old Jamaican extended his own world
record to 9.58 seconds.

Jamaican Duo

In London, Bolt’s not the only Jamaican sprinter Gay has to
be concerned with. Bolt’s training partner Yohan Blake won the
world championships last year after Bolt was disqualified for
false-starting. At the Jamaican trials Blake, 22, beat Bolt in
both the 100 and 200, clocking a personal best 9.75 seconds in
the shorter race, the fourth-fastest of all time.

Bolt remains the man to beat as far as Gay is concerned.

“He’s the only one who’s been where we’ve never been,�
said Gay, who’s also running the 200 meters. “He’s still one of
the favorites. He knows what it takes.�

Gay’s career has been hampered by injuries. He comes into
the London Games a year after surgery on his hip and expects to
be involved in one of the fastest races in history if he lines
up in the Aug. 5 100-meter final.

“If they run times I’ve never done before, I hope my body
is able to go there,� he said.

For Blake, the Olympics are a new experience. He had just
finished high school and was at home watching Bolt in Beijing
prance around in front of television cameras making his
trademark “lightening� sign.

“I try not to think about that rivalry. I just focus on me
and what I have to do,� Blake told reporters. “For me, I keep
it simple. I want to beat those guys but it’s all about the
execution.�

Not having the Olympic knowhow his rivals, who also include
another former world record-holder Asafa Powell of Jamaica,
isn’t a disadvantage, said Blake.

“Everyone’s talking about experience, experience,� he
said. “For me it’s about going out there and getting the job
done.�

To contact the reporters on this story:
Tariq Panja at the Olympic Park in London at
tpanja@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Christopher Elser in London at
celser@bloomberg.net

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) — Jamaican sprinter Yohan Blake speaks at a news conference in London about competing in his first Olympics, his relationship with training partner Usain Bolt and the outlook for the men’s 100-meter race. (Excerpts. Source: Bloomberg)

• Facebook Share

• LinkedIn
• Google +1

• 
  COMMENTS

• Print

Article source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/tyson-gay-seeks-redemption-as-he-sprints-to-challenge-usain-bolt.html

By Gene Cherry

LONDON |
Wed Aug 1, 2012 2:01pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) – American sprinter Tyson Gay will find satisfaction only if he wins a medal in the Olympic 100 meters, the former world champion said on Wednesday.

The world’s second fastest man of all time, Gay has never stepped on an Olympic podium and hip surgery, which kept him off the track for nearly a year, will make the task in London no easier as he goes up against world record holder Usain Bolt and world champion Yohan Blake.

“There is a lot of pressure, I am not going to lie to you,” Gay, whose 30th birthday is four days after the August 5 Olympic final, told a news conference.

“There would still be pressure if I did get a medal in ’08,” said Gay who went out in the semi-finals of the Beijing Olympics while less than fully fit.

“There is a lot more now because I really feel the missing piece, in my heart, is getting an Olympic medal.”

With Blake and Bolt favored to take the top two medals in the final, Gay is expected to be in a dog fight with 2004 Olympic champion Justin Gatlin, who defeated him in the American trials, and Jamaican former world record holder Asafa Powell for the third.

But even Bolt has warned the tenacious Gay could be a major threat if fully healthy.

“If they run times I have never seen before, I can only hope my body can go there as well,” said Gay.

After all, the American’s 2009 personal best of 9.69 seconds trails only Bolt’s world record of 9.58, set the same year.

This year, Gay ranks only equal fifth on the 100m list, trailing Blake, Bolt, Gatlin and Powell.

“I came up short in 2008,” said Gay, who was recovering from a hamstring injury in Beijing. “I really want to redeem myself for my family and my country.”

He will honor both with personalized red, white and blue shoes and his daughter’s name, Trinity, embroidered on the tongue of them.

Five months ago the sprinter appeared a longshot even to be in London.

Because of 2011 hip surgery, Gay did not start training on the track until March.

His first race came in early June, followed by his second place to Gatlin at the U.S. trials later in the month.

“My confidence is pretty good,” he said, “and I have been having consistent treatment now.”

Fitness will not be a problem, said Gay, who still believes Bolt cannot be overlooked in the 100m despite many observers making Blake the hot favorite.

“He (Bolt) is the only guy who has been where we haven’t been (timewise), the American said. “He still has to be one of the favorites.”

(Editing by Alison Wildey)

Article source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-oly-athl-gay-presser-day-idUSBRE87018Z20120801

President Obama’s announcement of support for same-sex marriage has changed public opinion on the issue, a new survey shows – but only in the most partisan of ways.

Democrats, and especially liberal Democrats, have become more supportive of same-sex couples marrying since the president made his famous pronouncement in May, according to poll results released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Latinos have also shifted slightly toward acceptance of same-same marriage.

Across almost all groups, the percentage of people with no opinion has gone down, suggesting that Obama may have prompted some people to make up their minds.

Among Democrats, support for same-sex marriage rose from 59% in April to 65% in the latest poll, conducted from June 28 to July 9. Among liberal Democrats, the increase was a notable 10 percentage points, from 73% to 83%.

Otherwise, opinions have scarcely budged. Neither Republicans nor political independents have significantly changed their views.

“Pretty much however we split it … the change is really focused among Democrats, and especially liberal Democrats,” said Besheer Mohamed, a research associate at Pew.

In its report, Pew noted the increase in Democratic support against the backdrop of recent news that the Democratic Party plans to add support for same-sex marriage to its party platform at the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

The issue will help Obama politically by increasing enthusiasm among his base of liberal Democrats, the poll numbers suggest. Otherwise, it appears to have been a wash, politically.

Viewed with a longer lens, opinions about gay marriage have shifted dramatically in recent years, with overall support rising from 31% in 2004 to 48% today. That is part of a larger rise in the acceptance of homosexuality that has occurred over decades, largely as older Americans, who tend to oppose same-sex marriage, have passed from the scene and been replaced by younger adults who tend to support it. But again, the change has been far more dramatic among political liberals than conservatives.

Overall, support for gay marriage among the general public edged up from 47% in April to 48% in the June-July survey. That is well within the margin of sampling error, which was plus or minus 2 percentage points for the overall group. Still, Mohamed said the growth was consistent with the general, slow shift in support over time.

Republican support rose by just 1 percentage point, from 23% to 24%. And support among independents dropped from 52% to 51%, suggesting that Obama did himself no favors among that political bloc.

There was a notable uptick in support for same-sex marriage among Latinos, another group that will play an important role in the presidential election. Support rose from 47% in April to 51% in June-July.

Among African Americans, both support and opposition rose as more people made up their minds, but the shifts were small – an increase of 1 percentage point in support and 2 percentage points in opposition.

Those results were well within the margin of sampling error, so it’s impossible to attach very much significance to them, other than to say that Obama’s statement didn’t dramatically change African American opinions. (This hardly matters politically, since black support for Obama is about as close to unanimous as political backing can get.)

Also important to note: Gay marriage is not likely to be a game-changer in the election. Only 4% of those surveyed said it was the most important issue determining their vote for president.

mitchell.landsberg@latimes.com

Article source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-partisan-divide-growing-on-gay-marriage-survey-finds-20120731,0,3598019.story?track=rss

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – A group of conservative black pastors are responding to President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage with what they say will be a national campaign aimed at rallying black Americans to rethink their overwhelming support of the President, though the group’s leader is offering few specifics about the effort.

The Rev. Williams Owens, who is president and founder of the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors and the leader of the campaign, has highlighted opposition to same-sex marriage among African-Americans. He calls this campaign “an effort to save the family.�

“The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women,� said Owens, in an interview Tuesday after the launch event at the National Press Club. “I am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road.�

At the press conference, Owens was joined by five other black regional pastors and said there were 3,742 African-American pastors on board for the anti-Obama campaign.

When asked at the press conference for specifics about the campaign – funding, planned events and goals – Owens said only that the group’s first fundraiser will be on August 16 in Memphis, Tennessee. But Owens insisted that “we are going to go nationwide with our agenda just like the president has gone to Hollywood.�

In May, Obama announced on ABC News that he thought “same sex couples should be able to get married.” The president had previously said that he opposed gay marriage, but said in May that his views were personal and did not represent a policy change.

In a fiery Tuesday press conference at the press club, Owens said Obama was taking the black vote for granted and decried the idea of similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, an assertion made by the NAACP following Obama’s same-sex marriage support.

Owens has long been an opponent of gay marriage and consults with the National Organization for Marriage as a liaison to the black churches.

At the press conference, Owens said that Obama’s support of same-sex marriage tantamount to supporting child molestation.

“If you watch the men who have been caught having sex with little boys, you will note that all of them will say that they were molested as a child…� Owens said. “For the president to condone this type of thing is irresponsible.�

Owens later walked about those comments back, saying he didn’t think the president was condoning molestation.

Earlier this year, memos obtained by The Human Rights Campaign in a Maine civil actions suit revealed that NOM aims at making gay marriage a wedge issued “between gays and blacks,� according to the released confidential plans.

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks – two key Democratic constituencies,” one NOM memo states. In light of the release, Brian Brown, president of NOM, said that he is proud of the group’s “strong recordâ€� on minority partnerships.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April found that 49% of African-Americans oppose legalized same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who support it. But that shows a softening on the position in recent years; In 2008, only 26% of blacks were in favor of same sex marriage, according to the same Pew poll.

At the same time, black voters overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008, while more recent polling shows a nearly equal level of support for the president’s 2012 reelection.

In a Public Religion Research Institute poll released last week, 18% of black Americans surveyed said they see same-sex marriage a “critical issue,� putting it behind the economy, education, deficit, a growing wealth gap and immigration.

According to Robert P. Jones, the CEO of the polling company, there is no evidence that same-sex marriage is something African-Americans will bring to the ballot box in November.

“Among African-Americans, I think same-sex marriage will be a nonissue in the election,� Jones told CNN. “We just have no evidence what so ever in slippage of support for Obama, even after his announcement in support of same sex marriage.�

The reaction of black pastors to the president’s support for gay marriage has been as varied as their congregations, ranging from condemnation to congratulations.

“We may disagree with our president on this one issue,” Rev. Wallace Charles Smith said from the pulpit of the Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington on the Sunday after Obama announced his support for legalized gay unions. “But we will keep him lifted up in prayer. … pray for President Barack Obama.”

At the Tuesday press conference, Owens questioned Obama’s commitment to black Americans, stating that the president is just “half-black, half-white� and has long “ignored the black press.�

He is “ignoring the people that put him in the White House,� Owens said.

Article source: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/31/black-pastors-group-launches-anti-obama-campaign-around-gay-marriage/

The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn a federal appeals court decision that struck down a California ballot initiative that limited marriage to a man and a woman, opponents of same-sex marriage said in a petition filed Tuesday.

Protect Marriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8,  called  February’s 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “misguided.�

“Our Constitution does not mandate the traditional definition of marriage, but neither does our Constitution condemn it,� the group’s petition to the high court said. “Rather, it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state.�

TIMELINE: Gay marriage chronology

Charles J. Cooper, Protect Marriage’s lead attorney in the case, said he was confident the Supreme Court would grant the review.

“The Supreme Court has made it very clear that the age-old definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is constitutional as a matter of state public policy,� Cooper said. “The lower court decisions essentially rejected all relevant Supreme Court and appellate court precedent while attacking the character and judgment of millions of Californians.�

The 9th Circuit ruling against Proposition 8 was narrowly written and applied only to California. Rather than expand the rights of gays and lesbians, the majority based its decision on a 1996 Supreme Court precedent that said a majority may not take away a minority’s rights without legitimate reasons.

The lawyers for two same-sex couples who challenged Proposition 8 in federal court said they would oppose review by the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has long held that the freedom to marry is one of the most fundamental rights — if not the most fundamental right — of all Americans,â€� said attorney David Boies. “Today’s petition presents the justices with the chance to affirm our Constitution’s central promises of liberty, equality and human dignity.â€�

A decision to review a lower-court ruling requires four votes by the high court. The 9th Circuit’s ruling has been put on hold pending the appeal.

ALSO:

2 former Lynwood council members found guilty of corruption

Fresno to Conan O’Brien: Yes to Bobblehead, no to suicidal cow

Father warns other parents after 3-year-old accidentally drowns

– Maura Dolan in San Francisco

Photo: Ken Pierce of Equality Action Now waves a rainbow flag outside a San Francisco courthouse in December 2011. Credit: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

Article source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/gay-marriage-foes.html

Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. — Part of a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and denies tax, health and other benefits to married gay couples is unconstitutional, a judge in Connecticut ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant in Hartford issued a 104-page decision saying the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection.

The provision “obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits,” Bryant wrote.

Bryant also noted that “many courts have concluded that homosexuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination.”

The ruling came in the case of six married same-sex couples and a widower from Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont who sued after being denied federal benefits, including recognition under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the federal tax code, Social Security death benefits and the New Hampshire Retirement System’s contribution to Medicare Insurance.

Several federal judges across the country have issued similar rulings. In late May, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston also ruled the law unconstitutional. And in early July, the Obama administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the legal fights over the Defense of Marriage Act.

Gay and lesbian advocates applauded Tuesday’s ruling, but they expected an appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.

“I’m thrilled that the court ruled that our marriage commitment should be respected by the federal government just as it is in our home state of Connecticut,” Joanne Pedersen, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said in a statement after the ruling was released.

Pedersen and her spouse, Ann Meitzen, of Waterford, Conn., were married under Connecticut’s gay marriage law in December 2008. Pedersen, a retired civilian employee of the U.S. Navy, is enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and tried to get Meitzen covered under the plan, but her request was denied. Meitzen has a chronic lung condition that affects her ability to work and wants to retire, but she can’t because of the cost of her health insurance, Bryant’s ruling said.

“I loved working for the Navy for many years, and now that I am retired I now just want to care for my wife and make sure we can enjoy some happy and healthy years together,” Pedersen said. “DOMA has prevented us from doing that.”

Pedersen, Meitzen and the other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in November 2010 against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and several federal officials.

Lawyers with the Connecticut U.S. attorney’s office and the U.S. Justice Department, who represented the defendants, didn’t immediately return messages Tuesday.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Raquel Ardin and Lynda DeForge of North Hartland, Vt., Janet Geller and Joanna Marquis of Goffstown, N.H., Bradley Kleinerman and James Gehre of Avon, Conn., Damon Savoy and John Weiss of Danbury, Conn., and Gerald Passaro of Milford, Conn.

The Obama administration has said it agrees with lower court rulings saying the law is unconstitutional, but it wants the review by the U.S. Supreme Court because President Barack Obama has instructed federal agencies to enforce the law’s ban on federal benefits to married gay couples until there is a final court ruling.

Gay Lesbian Advocates Defenders, or GLAD, represented the plaintiffs.

“Judge Bryant’s ruling is very clear: married people are married and should be treated as such by the federal government,” Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights project director, said in a statement. “There is no legitimate basis for DOMA’s broad disrespect of the marriages of same-sex couples.”

Sheryl Rapee-Adams, chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said repealing the law would be in line with the U.S. Constitution.

“Until DOMA is struck down, Vermonters married to partners of the same gender live in a state with equality, but in a federal legal landscape that bars them from hundreds of protections and rights for their families that heterosexual couples are entitled to,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Wilson Ring in Montpelier, Vt., contributed to this story.

—Copyright 2012 Associated Press

Article source: http://online.wsj.com/article/AP92de8122c3734d32bca74862c58706bd.html

WASHINGTON — The likely inclusion of a plank supporting marriage equality in the Democratic Party platform reflects a significant shift in opinion among Democratic voters over the last 8 years, according to a new national poll.

The latest survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted June 28 to July 9, finds that nearly two-thirds of Democrats nationwide (65 percent) favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while just 29 percent are opposed. That finding marks a reversal from just eight years ago, when just 40 percent of Democrats approved of gay marriage and 50 percent opposed it.

Support for same-sex marriage has grown most rapidly among Democrats, according to the Pew Research poll, which also shows support has risen gradually among independents and Republicans over the last eight years. Overall, their July survey now shows slightly more support for gay marriage (48 percent) than opposition to it (44 percent).

While the new survey confirms these long-term trends, it also yields little evidence that President Barack Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage in May has had a significant impact on public opinion on the issue beyond the Democratic base. Forty-seven percent of Americans surveyed by Pew Research in April supported same-sex marriage while 43 percent opposed it, results that differ from those of the most recent survey by just one percentage point.

The exception may be liberal Democrats, whose support for same-sex marriage increased from 73 percent in April to 83 percent in the most recent survey.

However, the Pew Research report notes that beyond liberal Democrats, attitudes have not shifted among other segments of the public. In particular, it found that African Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriage. In the current survey, 40 percent of blacks favor gay marriage and 51 percent are opposed, roughly the same result as in Pew’s April survey, when 39 percent were in favor and 49 percent opposed.

That last result contradicts the findings from surveys conducted in the immediate aftermath of the Obama’s endorsement. For example, an ABC News/Washington Post survey in May found support for gay marriage among African Americans had increased to 59 percent.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow

• Connecticut

  Since November 12, 2008

• Iowa

  Since April 3, 2009

• Massachusetts

  Since May 17, 2004

• New Hampshire

  Since January 1, 2010

• New York

  Since July 24, 2011

• Vermont

  Since September 1, 2009

• Washington D.C.

  Since March 9, 2010

• California

  The state initially began conducting gay marriages on June 16, 2008. On November 5, 2008, however, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state’s constitution to declare marriage as only between a man and a woman.

• Maryland

  The gay marriage bill was signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) on March 1, 2012. Opponents have since gathered enough signatures to force the issue back onto the ballot in November 2012. If the referendum fails, same-sex marriage ceremonies are set to begin on January 1, 2013.

• Washington

  On February 13, 2012, Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed a law allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies to begin on June 7, 2012. The process was delayed by gay marriage opponents who gathered enough signatures to put the issue up to a state vote in November 2012.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/democrats-gay-marriage-pew-research-poll_n_1723295.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Democrats over the weekend put themselves on track to endorse a pro-gay marriage plank for their convention platform, but neither the party nor the Obama campaign wanted to talk about it Monday.

Six states have legalized gay marriage and three more have legalization measures on the ballot for the fall, but the gradual increase in acceptance of the issue hasn’t done anything to mitigate its political touchiness this election year. Though legalization is seen as a major boost to Democratic efforts to energize the base and stoke fundraising among an active LGBT donor community, wide swaths of voters — including in many swing states — remain opposed.

Continue Reading

Both parties, however, have steered clear of making it into a central issue of the campaign, with Democrats wary of setting off a damaging culture war and Republicans wary of looking noninclusive.

(PHOTOS: 20 gay rights milestones)

But even the platform plank — something LGBT activists had sought — sparked some worries. The platform is set to be adopted, after all, at the party convention in North Carolina, which in May passed a referendum banning gay marriage. Obama’s long-sought endorsement of gay marriage came the next day, increasing momentum for the effort.

The 15-member Democratic Party platform draft committee unanimously approved the pro-gay marriage language at its meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis and sent the platform draft to the full platform committee, which meets in Detroit in two weeks.

“I don’t think that we had any issues that were controversial,� one member of the committee said Monday. “I think we were pretty much in sync and in agreement with where we ended up.�

Still, former Rep. Travis Childers, a Mississippi Democrat who was unseated in the 2010 tea party wave, said Blue Dog Democrats like himself would be hesitant to support pro-gay marriage language.

“It is not something that I would agree with, that part of the platform,� Childers said Monday. “I think the conservative Democrats, especially in the South, a great number will disagree with that.�

(Also on POLITICO: Politicians weigh in on Chick-fil-A gay marriage controversy)

White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to discuss the issue at Monday’s press briefing.

“The president’s position on this view has been well-chronicled, shall we say,� Earnest said. “But in terms of a specific reaction to the platform, I’d refer you to my colleagues at the DNC.�

But a DNC representative offered no comment in response to questions.

“The president’s personal views on marriage equality are known,� Obama campaign spokeswoman Clo Ewing said, repeating a statement the campaign made last week before the committee met. “The president and the party are committed to crafting a platform that reflects the president’s positions and the values of the party.�

Mitt Romney, who has supported gay issues in the past but never gay marriage, made no specific comment on the platform Monday.

“Gov. Romney has been consistent in his support for traditional marriage,� spokesman Ryan Williams said.

It will take time for conservative Democrats to endorse gay marriage, said Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress.

“It’s reflective of the issue itself that in fact this is an issue that people have struggled with,� she said. “And I think that elected officials at every level in every place have struggled with it. They’ve gotten to a place as a party where a lot of people feel comfortable with it.�

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), an openly gay member of Congress, predicted the platform plank won’t hurt Obama — because voters already know his position — or members of Congress up for reelection who are squeamish on the issue.

“If it’s not their position, then I don’t think that voters will take that into account,� Polis said. “Each candidate running for office, whether a Democrat or a Republican, has positions that they stand for. Sometimes those are in agreement with party platform, sometimes not.�

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was less circumspect. Endorsing gay marriage, he said, will cost Democrats in elections up and down the ballot.

“They can kiss the presidential election, the House and now the Senate goodbye,� he said.

Brown acknowledged the move will help Democrats raise money from gay donors but said backers of traditional marriage will be even more motivated.

“He can collect all the money he wants from San Francisco and Hollywood,� he said. “But at the end of the day, San Francisco and Hollywood don’t elect the president of the United States.�

Heather Cronk of Get Equal said Monday that Obama and Democrats must go beyond merely accepting gay marriage.

“Now it’s time for the president to again lead by example and make unmistakably clear that not only does he support LGBT equality when campaign coffers are low, but that he will do everything in his power to make LGBT Americans equal,� Cronk said. “We need more than platitudes and platforms — we need real, concrete change.�

Article source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79126.html?hp=r12_b1

A new poll out today from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life ratifies some of what we already know about public attitudes toward marriage equality. Democrats, Independents and white non-Hispanic Catholics are for it. Republicans, African Americans and white evangelical Protestants are not. It bursts the popular storyline (that I willfully engaged in) that President Obama’s public declaration of support for marriage-equality markedly changed hearts and minds among African Americans. But it also confirms an undeniable truth. Support for legal recognition of same-sex couples continues to rise.

The chart at right tells the story. In the four years since the 2008 survey, there has been a 15-percent jump in support among Democrats (65 percent), seven percent among Independents (51 percent) and five percent among Republicans (24 percent). Republicans are the most opposed to marriage equality (70 percent). Overall, 48 percent are in favor and 44 percent are not.

African Americans aren’t too keen on same-sex marriage either. The Pew poll reports that “the share of African Americans who support gay marriage is no higher today than it was before Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage.� That was in May. An April Pew poll put support at 39 percent. Today, it’s 40 percent. But according to this latest survey, “it is up substantially from 26 percent in 2008 and 21 percent in 2004.�

The one group that Pew says does appear to have been swayed by Obama’s pronouncement are liberal Democrats.

.?.?.Obama’s announcement may have rallied the Democratic base — particularly liberal Democrats — to the issue. Democrats supported gay marriage by a 59% to 31% margin in April — that stands at 65% to 29% today. Most of this shift has come among liberal Democrats, 83% of whom now support gay marriage, up from 73% earlier this year.

For all the opposition by leaders in the Catholic Church, their flock isn’t following. “Nearly six-in-ten white non- Hispanic Catholics (59%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry,� Pew reports, “as do 57% of Hispanic Catholics.� This shouldn’t come as too surprising. Catholics have been leading the way on same-sex marriage for some time now.

“[T]here has been a rise in support for gay marriage across many demographic groups, even those who have traditionally been the most opposed,� Pew explains. “A large portion of the growth in acceptance of gay marriage over the past two decades is the result of generational replacement — the arrival of younger, more supportive generations making up a larger share of the population. But the pace of change in support for gay marriage has increased in recent years across generational lines.�

One day, the laws of this nation will reflect this. It’s not a matter of if, but when.

Article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pew-poll-shows-rising-support-for-gay-marriage/2012/07/31/gJQAJsLSNX_blog.html

NEW YORK –The partisan gap over same-sex marriage in the U.S. continues to widen, with 65 percent of Democrats now supporting it compared to 24 percent of Republicans, according to poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

The poll found an increase in support among Democrats since President Barack Obama announced in May that he favors same-sex marriage. In April, a Pew poll gauged support among Democrats at 59 percent.

The latest poll, conducted jointly by the Pew’s Forum on Religion and Public Life and its Center for the People and the Press, was released a day after Democratic Party leaders said they intended to add support for gay marriage to the party platform at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, in early September.

At the time of the last convention, in 2008, 50 percent of Democrats favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 42 percent were opposed. In the new poll, only 29 percent of Democrats were opposed.

According to Pew, support for gay marriage also has increased among independents. In the new poll, 51 percent of independents favor it, and 40 percent are opposed. In 2008, 44 percent of independents backed gay marriage, 45 percent were against it.

Advocates of gay marriage say the trends highlighted by Pew and other pollsters suggest that support for it by Obama and his party will be an asset in the Nov. 6 election. Foes of gay marriage disagree, noting that a majority of voters in several of the most hotly contested states have supported amendments banning gay marriage, including Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, where the ban prevailed in the May 8 primary.

“There are many Democratic members of Congress, and officeholders further down the ticket, who live in states and districts where it will be a serious disadvantage to be identified with ‘the gay marriage party,’” said Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council.

Gay marriage will be on the ballot in four states on Nov 6. Voters in Maryland, Washington state and Maine will have a chance to join six other states in legalizing same-sex marriage, while Minnesotans will be voting on a ban-gay-marriage amendment.

Overall, Americans remain closely divided on same-sex marriage. The new Pew poll found 48 percent in favor and 44 percent opposed, virtually unchanged from a survey in April — before to Obama’s announcement.

Among blacks, 51 percent oppose gay marriage and 40 percent favor it, according to Pew — about the same as in April. Longer term, blacks have become much more supportive; in 2008 only 26 percent supported gay marriage.

The new poll was conducted by telephone June 28-July 9 among a random national sample of 2,973 adults, including 774 self-identified Republicans, 995 Democrats and 1,037 independents.

Results among all adults have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points, including 4.1 percent for Republicans, 3.6 percent for Democrats and 3.5 percent for independents.

Article source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/07/31/20120731gay-marriage-poll-partisan-gap-widens.html

Article source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gay-marriage-billboards-banned-across-united-states-2012-07-31

{WOMENSENEWS}–“The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be.”

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper’s famous no-nonsense words published by Daily Beast reporter Andrew Sullivan in July have been widely interpreted as the signpost of a new era of mainstream media acceptance.

It just wasn’t considered big news.

A few days later, in a similar non-event, singer and songwriter Frank Ocean revealed his first love was a man through a post on his Tumblr blog. Following the confession, his album, “Channel Orange,” still debuted at No. 2 on Billboard.

Many religious communities, however, are still far from extending anything like this sort of tolerance. If they were, Jennifer Knapp’s life would be very different today.

Knapp was a star Christian pop singer from 1994 to 2002, selling a million records between 1998 and 2002 and performing in churches across the country. Her music earned her four Dove Awards from the Gospel Music Association and two Grammy nominations.

But all that changed when Knapp announced in 2010 that she was gay–she became an instant outcast. Christian radio stopped playing her songs and Christian bookstores stopped selling her music.

“No Christian, according to the Bible, can be simultaneously gay,” said Pastor DL Foster, founder of Witness Freedom Ministries in Atlanta, Ga., which runs programs to convert gay people into becoming straight. “So Christian singers should be holy, not homosexual.”

Knapp, 38, no longer considers herself a member of the Christian music world.

A Similar Rejection

She joins the ranks of Marsha Stevens, who suffered a similar rejection decades ago. After losing a lucrative career Stevens went on to exercise her faith in other ways.

Stevens, 59, once drew thousands of fans to her concerts. She came out in 1980 during what was known as the Jesus movement. Afterwards Maranatha Music, a Christian label, dropped her. Christian music publishers pulled her music from retail and promoters canceled her concert bookings.

“I was completely taken aback by the reaction,” said Stevens. “I spent about five years saying ‘I don’t need Jesus,’ but I absolutely do. I couldn’t make myself not be a Christian.”

In the mid-1980s Stevens visited the Metropolitan Community Church in southern California, which caters to the gay population. “I thought it would be a joke, a drag show church. I was surprised to find it was just a regular church,” she said.

Stevens connected with others there who, in lower-profile ways, had suffered similar rejection. She began writing songs for the church. Since she had no place to get the songs published, she started BALM (Born Again Lesbian Music) Ministries, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which now also produces records.

“I realized there were a lot of religious people coming out who didn’t have a place to go,” said Stevens. The religious gay community, who wanted to make Christian music, found a place at BALM Ministries, she added. So far BALM has trained 35 artists, including Justin Ryan and Carolyn Marshall.

But for Stevens the rejection still isn’t over. She says she receives hate mail, often from parents who blame her for their children’s sexual orientation. “They tell me ‘I can’t believe you’ve led my child astray; she read your site and now thinks it’s OK to be gay,’” Stevens said.

Toughened Skin

Years of this type of treatment have toughened her skin. “It doesn’t hurt my heart anymore,” said Stevens. “BALM Ministries is my heart now.”

Knapp has also become a part of a similar ministry. She tours the country as a speaker and singer with Inside Out Faith, a program that aims to stop the marginalization of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered, or LGBT, people. The nonprofit organization is based in Nashville, Tenn.

Knapp performs but also speaks to the audience of her own experiences.

“I have the opportunity to effect change,” said Knapp. “What I thought would be a challenge for acceptance has actually turned out to be a chance to help others.”

LGBTs who have grown up in a religious environment are facing criticism from their faith and their families, Knapp said. “It’s about recognizing and supporting safe environments inside religious communities for LGBT people of faith to come out.”

Knapp grew up in a secular household in Kansas. But at around 20 years old, she wanted to connect with Christianity and started writing about her experience. She soon began performing at churches throughout the Midwest. Eventually she was signed by Gotee Records, a Christian label located in Nashville, Tenn., where she released three studio albums.

Knapp took a break from music in 2002 and unexpectedly fell in love with a woman. After announcing her return to music in 2010, she also told the public of her new relationship. That was the moment that changed her life.

“For the last two years I’ve been consistently asked to tell the story of what such damaging judgment does to people,” said Knapp. “I know. I’ve lived it.”

She is now unsigned and her latest independent release “Letting Go” was not played on Christian radio.

Article source: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2012/07/31/Gay-Christian-singers-find-themselves-outcasts/WEN-1661343769721/

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES |
Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:08pm EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Gay marriage opponents asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to uphold a California ban on same-sex matrimony that was struck down by two lower courts as a violation of the Constitution.

The request from backers of Proposition 8, the voter-approved state constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, comes a week after the high court was asked to review a Massachusetts case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage the same way.

The two petitions move the politically charged issue of marriage rights for gay men and lesbians one step closer to a potential first-time review by the Supreme Court in the weeks before November’s U.S. presidential election.

President Barack Obama turned gay marriage into a 2012 campaign issue in May when he came out in support of the right of same-sex couples to wed. His Republican opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, disagrees.

The Supreme Court could agree to hear the California and Massachusetts cases in its next session, which begins in October, putting the court on track to issue a ruling within a year.

Alternatively, the high court could decline to hear either or both cases.

Refusing to weigh in on the fight over California’s Prop 8 would keep intact lower-court rulings nullifying it but leave unresolved the broader question of whether similar gay marriage bans in other states would survive a constitutional challenge.

California, the most populous state, joined the vast majority of U.S. states in outlawing same-sex marriage in 2008 when voters passed Prop 8, overriding a state Supreme Court decision six months earlier that briefly legalized gay marriage.

The state high court, however, later ruled that 18,000 same-sex weddings officiated between May and November of 2008 would remain legal.

Gay rights advocates subsequently brought suit against Prop 8, and a San Francisco-based federal judge struck down the measure in a landmark 2010 decision that was upheld in February by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court declined to reconsider the matter in June.

However, the California measure restricting marriage to heterosexual couples remains in effect until the legal challenge to Prop 8 runs its course, barring further weddings between gay men and lesbians in the state in the meantime.

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

The majority opinion in February’s 2-1 decision by the 9th Circuit held that California’s Prop 8 ban did not further the goal of “responsible procreation,” which was at the heart of the argument made by supporters of the measure.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” the court ruled.

In focusing specifically on Prop 8, the appeals court left unaddressed whether marriage is a fundamental right available to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike.

Some legal experts have predicted that the narrow ruling would lead the U.S. Supreme Court to either limit its own review to the California law or refuse to consider the case altogether.

In its petition for high-court review, Prop 8 supporters argued that the U.S. Constitution leaves the definition of marriage up to individual states to determine.

“Whether the Constitution requires California to eliminate the most longstanding, universal and fundamental institution — marriage consisting of one man and one woman — is a question that should be settled by the Supreme Court,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for Prop 8′s defenders.

David Boies, co-counsel for Prop 8 foes, said his side opposed the petition because “gay and lesbian Californians should not have to wait any longer to marry the person they love.”

But he said gay rights advocates welcome Supreme Court review of the case, adding that the petition “presents the justices with the chance to affirm our Constitution’s central promises of liberty, equality and human dignity.”

If the Supreme Court does take the case, the outcome could well hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican-appointed conservative seen as a key swing vote. He has written two important decisions that came down on the side of same-sex couples, though he has not explicitly endorsed gay marriage.

Six U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage but 30 have banned it.

Last week, Massachusetts’ attorney general, Martha Coakley, petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold a federal appeals court decision striking down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May affirmed a lower-court ruling that gay and lesbian couples who were legally permitted to wed in Massachusetts had been unconstitutionally denied federal benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act, including the right to file joint income tax returns or collect Social Security retirement benefits.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Cynthia Osterman and Lisa Shumaker)

Article source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-california-idUSBRE86U1I420120801

A new poll shows markedly increased support by Democrats for same-sex marriage.

The Pew Research survey says that 65% of Democrats support gay marriage, while only 29% oppose it.

“Just four years ago, in 2008, only half (50%) of Democrats favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 42% were opposed,” reported the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion Public Life and Center for the People the Press.

The survey arrives as the Democratic Party prepares to endorse gay marriage in the platform to be approved at its September convention, as reported by our OnPolitics blog.

President Obama announced in May that gay marriage should be legal.

A partisan divide remains over the gay marriage issue.

“Just 24% of Republicans now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, which is only slightly higher than the percentage of Republicans who supported gay marriage in 2008 (19%),” said the poll.

Also: “More independents today favor (51%) than oppose (40%) gay marriage; four years ago independents were divided evenly (44% favor, 45% oppose).”

The Pew Research Center also reported:

Blacks Remain Opposed. In the new survey, 51% of blacks oppose gay marriage, while 40% favor it. That is virtually unchanged since April, before Obama came out in support of gay marriage. Over the long-term, however, blacks have become much more supportive of gay marriage. In 2008, just 26% of blacks favored gay marriage.

Gay Adoption. Like support for gay marriage, support for allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children has increased in recent years. Currently, 52% favor and 42% oppose allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. Four years ago, the public was divided over gay adoption (46% favored, 48% opposed).

Opinions about Nature of Homosexuality Change More Slowly. Currently, 41% say homosexuality is something people are born with, while 35% say it is a personal preference and 13% say it is something that develops because of the way people are brought up. While far more people say homosexuality is something people are born with than did so in the mid-1980s, these opinions have changed only modestly in recent years. In 2006, 36% said that homosexuality was something people are born with.

Religious Divisions over Gay Marriage. Just 22% of white evangelical Protestants favor gay marriage, while 73% are opposed. Black Protestants also oppose gay marriage, by a 54% to 38% margin. A majority of white non-Hispanic Catholics favor gay marriage, as do 50% of white mainline Protestants. Nearly three-quarters of the religiously unaffiliated support gay marriage.

Article source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/poll-democratic-support-for-gay-marriage-grows/1

Growing up in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and New Zealand, and travelling extensively all my life has helped shape me into an open minded and culturally aware individual — at least that is how I see myself. I have been around people from all walks of life, with a range of political and religious beliefs, differing moral and ethical standpoints and wildly varied sexual predilections. I usually find something to admire in people regardless of their beliefs.

I have, however, always enjoyed ruffling the feathers of people with overly conservative and entrenched positions. This is simply because, in my experience, these views are largely due to an indifference to try to meaningfully understand others, a lack of broader experiences, and a lack of empathy for people who they do not consider to be “normal”, whatever that means. In essence I find ultra conservatives boring.

I launched BeautifulPeople.com in the U.K. and U.S. in 2005. It is now global and caters to internet daters who quite simply don’t want to filter through all the riff raff on other dating sites. Like it or hate it, it is Darwinism — it is the result of millions of years of evolution. We all want to be with someone we are attracted to. It may not be PC to say so but it is honest. People who claim otherwise are lying. I am beautiful, my wife is beautiful and my baby daughter is beautiful. I make no apologies for it.

To be accepted to BeautifulPeople.com, hopefuls have to be voted in by existing members of the opposite sex. The reason we only have opposite sex voting is that otherwise members (primarily the women) would vote strategically to eliminate the competition!

We have always accepted gay members into the BeautifulPeople community, but my gay friends have been on at me to launch exclusively gay versions of the site. Apparently being gay and having to vote in members of the opposite sex is “fucking boring”. I can see that. Additionally, it recently dawned on me — or if I am to be honest, was pointed out to me by a gay girlfriend of mine after a heated debate and too much red wine — that what a gay woman finds attractive in a woman is very different to what a straight man finds attractive in a woman (she is gorgeous and I could not believe the women she was sleeping with). She was right of course — my gay members had not been represented fairly on our flagship site so I hurried to launch our gay versions. Three months later here we are.

When I was trying to articulate what my gay sites would be all about for the “About” blurb on the sites I realized I had a problem: “We want to emulate the success that we have had on BeautifulPeople.com with over 650 marriages through unions founded on BeautifulPeople blah blah blah”. Hold on, stop the press. It’s illegal in most states for a gay man or woman to marry the person they love. That gave me pause for thought. How is it that in the bastion of the free world our good fellow citizens are not allowed to marry the person they love? Furthermore, how is it possible they are discriminated against, missing out on over 1,137 federal benefits, allowances and responsibilities? How is it possible they are not able to gain the important social recognition that comes with marriage? It is just plain wrong. I draw a parallel to the anti-miscegenation laws, the criminalization of interracial marriage which remained in force in many U.S. states until 1967. Now that was a bad idea.

As long as our members cannot enjoy the same benefits and recognition as their fellow citizens we will be campaigning. It’s not about gay rights — it’s about human rights, pure and simple.
I decided I would launch a colorful campaign for marriage equality. I chose Bachmann and Palin because I have always wanted to see them kiss! Okay, typical straight male comment but I could not resist and it’s kind of true! Jokes aside, all our featured political heavyweights — barring Obama — have been vociferous in their rallying cry against marriage equality. This goes particularly for Bachmann , whose husband has a clinic that purports to cure gay men which is… well… just cuckoo! He really needs to come out of the closet! Perhaps we could bring Bachmann around by appealing to her in a different way: “Michele, marriage is bloody tough. Why should you, I and all the other straight married couples suffer? Should not gay men and women suffer along with us!” Maybe that will work, appealing to her ethical side clearly does not.

As for the rest of them, it’s a playful jab to show how many of our politicians are going to be on the wrong side of history — silly rabbits.

I have been asked why Trump is holding the flowers. Personally I would have had Romney hold the bouquet, but it was purely an aesthetic decision — the pink flowers just happened to match Trump’s tie.

That our billboard campaign has been banned around the country was very surprising, scary and showed me firsthand what the LGBT community has been up against for so long. Not one to go quietly into the night, I have managed to get the uncensored images out on the back of trucks that are, as I write this, driving around New York to applause!

Beautiful gay men and beautiful gay women now get to define their own ideal of beauty on my sites. There have been sweeping victories for the LGBT community in the last year and there are more on the horizon. It is a shame that many of our political representatives are going to have to look back in years to come and say to themselves: “What was I thinking?” The problem is that they aren’t really thinking.

Allowing same sex couples to marry does not do anything to lessen the sanctity of marriage between straight couples. It does not dilute the vows or commitment you make, and it is not to blame for the fact that you argue with your spouse and that you have not had sex in over a month. That’s just marriage folks — get over yourselves.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-hodge/beautifulpeople-gay-marriage_b_1724382.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-marriage

Post Contributor Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post contributor. Post contributors aren’t staff, but may write articles or columns. In some cases, contributors are sources or experts quoted in a story.

More about badges | Request a badge

Article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-gay-marriage-support-fails-to-sway-americans/2012/07/31/gJQA07WrMX_blog.html

Throughout the presidential campaign, Fox News will be breaking down the key issues and giving viewers an in-depth look at the positions of President Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. This article in the AEHQ Issues series focuses on gay marriage.  

The Democratic National Committee made headlines this week with the announcement that for the first time, it is moving to include a plank supporting same-sex marriage in the party’s convention platform. 

It appeared to be a bit of an “in your face” to the host state, North Carolina, which just voted by 61 percent for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. 

The Democratic Party, though, has been emboldened since President Obama reversed course and came out in favor of same-sex marriage in May. 

In the 2012 presidential race, both candidates are trying to appeal to their base on the issue. While Obama is the first sitting Democratic — or Republican — president to endorse gay marriage and in turn use that in his re-election race, Republican Mitt Romney’s task may be to convince GOP voters he’s firmly in the opposite camp on the issue. As governor of Massachusetts, he opposed gay marriage, but briefly entertained the idea of civil unions when the state courts ordered same-sex marriages to go ahead. 

Either way, gay marriage is arguably a bigger wedge in this year’s presidential race than it ever has been thanks to the president’s endorsement. 

Obama has energized the LGBT lobby and Hollywood, raising millions of dollars off the announcement for his campaign. 

“When the president came out in support of freedom to marry, he was doing what we elect presidents to do,” said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.  ”He was showing the moral leadership of standing up for the full protection and dignity of every American under the Constitution.” 

In embracing this wedge issue, though, Obama has not only contrasted himself with many conservatives, he has also managed to created deep divisions within his own party. On Tuesday, the Coalition of African-American Pastors launched a national campaign to withdraw support for Obama over same-sex marriage. Rev. William Owens, who is leading the campaign, complains that the President “threatens the stability of the family, especially the black family.” 

Owens said Obama has ignored the coalition’s request for a meeting and today vowed, “We will see that the black community is informed that the president is taking them for granted while pandering to the gay community.” 

Such talk could be an indication that the president may run into difficulty in close swing states like North Carolina. “Key Democratic constituencies do not support same-sex marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.  ”And I think that you are going to see a real lack of support for President Obama from them and then folks in the middle.” 

Romney may be angling for some of those votes. But while some conservatives are still anxious over where he actually stands, NOM’s Brian Brown needs no convincing. 

“If you go back to Massachusetts, people say no, no he wasn’t strong on the issue”, Brown told Fox News. “If you actually look at what he did, he stood up for a state constitutional amendment.  He fought so that the people could vote.” 

In Massachusetts, the issue never went to a vote.  In other states it did.  Twenty-nine currently have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.  Many of those states, including North Carolina, also ban “marriage equivalents” like civil unions. 

Four other states — Washington, Minnesota, Maine and Maryland — have put the question on the November ballot in some form.  Recent polls suggest that all of those states could vote in favor of same-sex marriage, which gives supporters reason to believe that the tide may be shifting in America. 

“Republicans, too, are moving in the direction of support,” Wolfson said.  ”Young Republicans, like young Democrats, young independents, young people across the spectrum overwhelmingly support the freedom to marry.” 

It isn’t just young Republicans who are changing their minds. Conservative David Blankenhorn fought fiercely for Prop 8, California’s measure to ban gay marriage.  In June, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times with the headline: “How My View On Gay Marriage Changed”.  Blankenhorn is now fully in favor of same-sex marriage. 

“As a marriage advocate,” he told Fox News, “I feel that I can do more to strengthen the institution now by accepting gay marriage than by continuing to oppose it.”  Blankenhorn says the public debate has come down to the question of whether the nation should support and recognize the dignity of homosexual love.  ”And to me – the answer to that question is yes.” 

On the campaign trail, Romney doesn’t talk much about the issue, leaving statements of “support for traditional marriage” to significant speeches like his appearances at Liberty University and the NAACP convention. Brown appreciates the support, though he wishes Romney — and his fellow Republicans — would talk more about it. 

“There are plenty of Republican strategists in this town — inside the Beltway that want to run from this issue. They think it is too divisive. They don’t want to bring it up — they don’t want to talk about it,” he told Fox News. 

Brown is determined to make same-sex marriage a major issue in the fall campaign.  Ironically, it may be the split in the Democratic Party that fuels the debate more than anything Republican candidates are planning.

Article source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/aehq-issues-gay-marriage-rises-as-wedge-in-2012-race/

Opinion

Dealing With Five Common Objections to New Member Classes

There is good anecdotal evidence and older research evidence to indicate new …

Interview

‘Obama’s America 2016′ Movie: If Obama Wins a Second Term, Where Will We Be?

Produced by Gerald R. Molen, who was the producer of the Academy Award Best …

Testimony

Former Supermodel Kathy Ireland: Jesus Loves Women and Honors Them

Supermodel-turned-business-mogul Kathy Ireland would be the first to tell you …

Living

A Mom’s Response to the Aurora Shootings

As believers, we must help our children, relatives, coworkers, and neighbors …

Vietnam is considering drafting a law that would legalize same-sex marriage, making it the first Asian country to break away from the traditional definition of marriage.

The Justice Ministry proposed to make amendments to the country’s marriage law by including same-sex couples in the definition, The Associated Press reported on Sunday. A new law would also clarify disputes between same-sex couples living together, and address issues such as owning property, inheriting assets and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” said Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong last week. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

While it is unknown how long it would take to make such a proposal reality, gay-rights activists are hailing this notion as a major step forward, and are confident that one day soon they will see Vietnam become the first Asian country to embrace same-sex marriage.

“I think everyone is surprised,” said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay rights activist. “Even if it’s not successful, it’s already making history. For me personally, I think it’s going to go through.”

Despite the news being welcomed by gay activists, Vietnam’s communist government has often been criticized for jailing political activists and dissidents who speak out in favor of democracy and religious freedom. Homosexuality itself was once branded a “social evil” along the same lines as drug addiction and prostitution.

Follow us

The marriage amendment has not been drafted as yet so it is still at least a few years away from becoming reality. The Justice Ministry has explained that it will consider opinions from the public along with government agencies before it submits the proposal to the National Assembly next year in May.

“Some people told me if Vietnam could legalize it, it would be very good example for other counties to follow,” said Le Quang Binh, head of the nonprofit Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment, which is providing consultation on the marriage law. “People think that talking about it is a big step forward already … I hope it will lead to more openness or tolerance for gays and lesbians in Vietnam.”

According to statistics, 92 percent of Vietnam’s population is Buddhist, and another 6.7 percent is Catholic and less than 0.5 percent is Protestant.

The Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexuals are called to celibacy, staunchly supports the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, but due to the minority it holds in Vietnam, is unlikely to be able to play a big part in the same-sex marriage debate in the country.

Article source: http://global.christianpost.com/news/vietnam-considering-gay-marriage-first-asian-nation-to-push-for-redefinition-79118/

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic Party is moving
to include support for gay marriage in the official party
platform for the first time, a Democratic official said
Monday, marking a key milestone for advocates of same-sex
unions.

The party’s platform drafting committee voted to
include language backing gay marriage during a weekend
meeting in Minneapolis, the official said. Democratic
delegates will formally approve the platform during the
party convention in Charlotte, N.C. in early September.

President Barack Obama will officially accept his
party’s nomination at the convention, which marks the
start of the fall campaign blitz. Republican rival Mitt
Romney will get the GOP nomination a week earlier during
his party’s convention in Tampa, Fla.

Seeking to ramp up enthusiasm among Democrats, party
officials said Sunday that former President Bill Clinton
will deliver the nominating speech on Wednesday night of
the convention. Obama and Biden are to speak on Thursday,
the convention’s final night.

Article source: http://www.ksl.com/?sid=21483977&nid=757&title=ap-source-dems-move-to-formally-back-gay-marriage&s_cid=queue-1

(RNS) In an unconventional move, a number of high-profile business executives have come out on the issue of gay marriage.

Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos is the latest to say “I do” to supporting same-sex unions. On Friday (July 27), Washington United for Marriage, a coalition that seeks to uphold a gay marriage law that passed in Washington, announced that Bezos and his wife MacKenzie will donate $2.5 million to its cause.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer have each donated $100,000 to the effort to keep gay marriage legal. Ken Powell, CEO of food behemoth General Mills, has publicly spoken out against Minnesota’s proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage. And Paul Singer, founder of financial firm Elliott Management, recently contributed $150,000 to Freedom to Marry, which fights for gay marriage across the nation.

In an opposite corner is Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy, who recently told Baptist Press that Chick-fil-A is “very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit.”

Cathy’s perceived anti-gay marriage statements renewed the nation’s debate on this hot-button topic.

The CEO of the Jim Henson Company responded. The company, which had a licensing agreement to supply toys for Chick-fil-A’s kids’ meals, said it will not partner with them on any future endeavors.

“Lisa Henson, our CEO, is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to (the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation),” it said in a written statement.

In the case of Chick-fil-A, it’s not just executives weighing in. Politicians are getting involved too.

On Thursday, San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee tweeted that he is “very disappointed (Chick-fil-A) doesn’t share San Francisco’s values strong commitment to equality for everyone.”

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also have criticized the private company.

Yet there are also many who support Chick-fil-A and Cathy.

For example, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he’s “incensed” by the negative feedback, and in turn has deemed Aug. 1 “Chick fil-A Appreciation Day,” when he’s asking consumers to support the chain by eating there.

Chick-fil-A didn’t respond directly when asked for a comment on Cathy’s statements but issued its own statement that said in part: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

In the Baptist Press interview, Cathy said his stance against same-sex marriage “might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

While companies and their employees are free to openly share their feelings on highly polarizing matters such as gay marriage, such statements from top executives can affect the brand image, say marketing experts.

“Usually companies stay away from anything contentious,” says Allen Adamson, managing director at branding firm Landor Associates and author of “BrandSimple: How the Best Brands Keep it Simple and Succeed.”

“They want the focus and attention on their products and services.”

As for Chick-fil-A, its reputation took a hit on the YouGov BrandIndex, which tracks consumer sentiment on 1,100 brands on a daily basis.

Before Cathy’s statements, it ranked high with consumers. As the controversy expanded, the company’s brand health has deteriorated.

In turn, that is likely to affect sales, says BrandIndex managing director Ted Marzilli.

“Some consumers might be very supportive of the brand or (Cathy’s) position, but when we look at overall consumers … this is going to have an impact,” he says.

Gay marriage is a “political hot potato,” he says, and executives “should be careful about dipping into the political waters.”

J.C. Penney felt backlash when it hired openly gay Ellen DeGeneres as its spokeswoman early this year.

But despite criticism from conservative activist groups, the retailer stood by its decision and took it a step further by featuring same-sex parents in its promotions.

“J.C. Penney really showed us a turning point,” says Michael Wilke, senior U.S.consultant for gay marketing firm Out Now. “Not only did they stand squarely behind (DeGeneres) in a public way, but then they took the unprecedented step of coming out with those Mother’s Day and Father’s Day same-sex ads that they put in their catalogs.”

Adding more pressure to the corporate office is this reality: Any executive statement or action that is remotely controversial can spread to millions in seconds via social media.

“Everything is connected and everyone sees everything,” says Adamson. “In today’s media landscape, there is a magnifying glass. Anything you say or do is prime time.”

Even before the Cathy controversy, Chick-fil-A saw how negative news could quickly disseminate.

Chick-fil-A — which has used the ad slogan “Eat Mor Chikin” since 1995 — tried to stop a small business owner’s trademark application for “Eat More Kale,” a catchphrase he had printed on shirts and stickers since 2001.

Thousands rallied to support that owner, Bo Muller-Moore, after word spread via social media streams.

For its part, Chick-fil-A is using social media to get its messages out as well. It didn’t directly address the company stance on gay marriage, but last week it let its Facebook fans know that they are going to try to step out of the spotlight on the issue.

“Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena,” it said.

(Laura Petrecca writes for USA Today.)

Also on HuffPost:

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/chick-fil-a-companies-gay-marriage_n_1721682.html

WASHINGTON, July 31 (UPI) — U.S. Democrats drafting their party’s platform have unanimously approved including an endorsement of same-sex marriage, aides and gay activists say.

The move, which is not final, would place the party in line with President Barack Obama‘s personal beliefs. On May 9 he became the first sitting president to say gay men and lesbians should be legally able to marry.

The undivided recommendation, made by a 15-member drafting committee in Minneapolis Sunday and first reported by the Washington Blade Monday, is widely expected to be approved, perhaps with a few adjustments, by the full platform committee when it meets in Detroit Aug. 10-12.

The approved document is then expected to be forwarded for approval by delegates to the party’s national convention, to be held in Charlotte, N.C., the week of Sept. 3.

Democrats said Monday former President Bill Clinton would give a speech on the economy at the convention Sept. 5 and formally place Obama’s name into nomination for re-election. Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak the following day, introducing Obama before his acceptance speech.

The platform language approved Sunday reiterated the party’s call for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, the Blade and other news organizations reported.

Gay rights supporters praised the Democratic Party vote, while conservative groups expressed dismay.

“Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest rights-advocacy group for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, said in a statement.

“I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue,” he said.

Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, predicted Democrats would regret the decision.

“There are many places in the country where Democratic candidates will not want to be identified with the gay-marriage party,” he told The New York Times. “I think this is more politically correct than it is politically smart.”

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, which promotes fundamentalist Christian values, told The Wall Street Journal he considered including the marriage plank in the Democrats’ platform “terrible news.”

“I’m a little surprised they would put it in the platform, because there are a lot of Democrats who don’t agree with that, especially in the black community,” he said.

The Rev. G. Modele Clarke, senior pastor of the predominantly black New Progressive Baptist Church in Kingston, N.Y., said historically black Christian denominations might have to shift their same-sex marriage position.

“The black church has been very conservative theologically,” taking the position the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and considering marriage between a man and a woman, Clarke told the Kingston Daily Freeman.

But “there are times when the Bible upheld things like slavery, genocide, polygamy and other practices that would be indefensible today,” he said.

“If somebody tried to defend slavery today based on biblical teachings and precepts, it wouldn’t hold up,” he said. “So when I look at this issue of same-sex marriage … I’m thinking, Are we on the same path that we were on when we defended slavery?”

Article source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/07/31/Dem-draft-platform-endorses-gay-marriage/UPI-83241343721600/

YOU KNOW we’re in the summer doldrums when a Chicken War is hatched to take center stage.

After the president of the Chick-fil-A chain stated he opposes gay marriage based on what the Bible says, he was blasted in the media, which is OK, while a few elected officials said they planned to ban his restaurants, which is not OK.

The sanctimonious mayors of Deep Blue Boston and Chicago fumed that Dan Cathy’s words were discriminatory and discrimination can’t be tolerated. Locally, Councilman Jim Kenney called Cathy’s remarks “hate” speech, but sanely stopped short of trying to ban the restaurants — which would hurt those who work at the six Philadelphia franchises.

Is it “discrimination” to oppose gay marriage? In the broadest sense, I would say yes.

But is it always deep, visceral “hate”? Firm Christians (and others) believe “marriage” must be restricted to one man and one woman. Is that “hate”?

If you are pro-choice, do you “hate” the unborn? If you oppose polygamy, is that “hate”? My gay friends say those are silly questions. It is the same principle.

Cathy’s views are based on the Bible, which is why none of his restaurants is open on Sunday, the biblical “day of rest.” That decision costs Cathy money, but he is devout and lives his beliefs, whether or not you agree with them. Unlike shape-shifting politicians (I’ll get to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a minute), Cathy is not a hypocrite. If his views are “hate,” and they come from the Bible, it follows that the Bible must be “hate” literature and should be banned, too. (Stop cheering, atheists — it’s not going to happen. Not soon, anyway.)

I don’t believe that opposing gay marriage is automatically “hate.” Some same-sex-marriage supporters see it differently, but they are throwing that word around too casually, as others do with “racist” or “socialist.” Both left and right are guilty of sloppy thinking and trash-talking.

I have searched the Internet and cannot find one accusation that Chick-fil-A ever discriminated against a gay customer or refused to hire a gay person. That would be discrimination, and that isn’t permitted in our society. Cathy’s anti-gay-marriage views are his personal opinion, not reflected in his business plan.

The ugliest aspect of this debate was the desire by elected officials — would-be tyrants — to stick their noses where government doesn’t belong. Boston and Chicago want to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of its owner.

One justification: Cathy donates to what his critics call “anti-gay” causes. His fans call them “pro-family.”

Other rich people have opposing views. Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, gave $2.5 million last week to the campaign to support Washington’s same-sex-marriage law. Should Deep Red Indianapolis and Dallas try to pull the plug on Amazon because they don’t like Bezos’ stance?

We are supposed to believe in free speech. The speech we should be most tolerant of — admittedly, this is hard — is that with which we disagree.

When I see a cheeseball like Rahm Emanuel trying to block a Chick-fil-A from opening because the chain doesn’t have “Chicago values,” is he referencing the values of murderous gang warfare, corrupt politics and fat-saturated food? A gold medalist in hypocrisy, Emanuel strongly campaigned for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — even as they opposed gay marriage. He stayed on as Clinton’s adviser even after he signed the (“anti-gay?”) Defense of Marriage Act. Why didn’t he resign in disgust?

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who so deeply believes his city is “in the forefront of inclusion,” will ban any contrary view to prove it. That’s more like Benito Mussolini than John Adams.

On Friday, pro-gay-marriage New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: “You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That’s just not government’s job.”

At the risk of creating biblical-based controversy, I say, “Amen.”

Article source: http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20120730_Is_anti-gay_marriage_hate__Don_t_ask_Rahm_Emanuel.html

SAN FRANCISCO — A vigorous supporter of California’s same-sex marriage ban was named Friday as the next Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco.

The Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI selected the Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, the presiding bishop of Oakland, to replace Archbishop George Niederauer in October. Niederauer, 76, is retiring.

As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego four years ago, Cordileone, 56, was instrumental in devising an initiative to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California and then raising Catholic dollars to qualify it for the ballot.

He also was part of a statewide network of clergy that promoted the measure, known as Proposition 8. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban.

Since last year, Cordileone has been chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register last year, Cordileone said that same-sex marriage is “a very serious social experiment that will have dire consequences.” Opposing it is “not a matter of religion,” he said.

At a news conference at St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco Friday, he said he thought the Roman Catholic Church had come a long way in addressing the issue of clergy sex abuse and reiterated his position on gay marriages.

“Marriage can only come about through the embrace of a man and a woman coming together,” he said. “I don’t see how that is discriminatory against anyone.”

Gay rights groups criticized the Pope’s choice of Cordileone to lead the San Francisco Archdiocese, which serves more than 400,000 Catholics in the city and neighboring Marin and San Mateo counties. As archbishop, he also will oversee the bishops in Honolulu, Las Vegas, Oakland, Reno, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Santa Rosa, and Stockton.

“While LGBT Catholics and their allies have worked relentlessly to create welcoming environments, the appointment of Bishop Cordileone sends a chilling message that, in the eyes of the hierarchy, same-sex relationships are not worthy of equal dignity and respect,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said.

A Field Poll released in February found that 51 percent of the Catholic respondents support same-sex marriages.

Article source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57482581/gay-marriage-ban-supporter-named-sf-archbishop/

WASHINGTON — Dick Cheney says he didn’t see the point of raising the issue of gay marriage in the 2000 presidential campaign, even though he supported it.

The former vice president suggested it wouldn’t have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush’s prospects for office. “Why?” he responded to ABC News when asked in a televised interview whether he should have pushed harder for gay couples to marry.

Cheney’s daughter, Mary, married her longtime partner this June.

Cheney said of the wedding: “I’m sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them.”

Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow

• Connecticut

  Since November 12, 2008

• Iowa

  Since April 3, 2009

• Massachusetts

  Since May 17, 2004

• New Hampshire

  Since January 1, 2010

• New York

  Since July 24, 2011

• Vermont

  Since September 1, 2009

• Washington D.C.

  Since March 9, 2010

• California

  The state initially began conducting gay marriages on June 16, 2008. On November 5, 2008, however, California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state’s constitution to declare marriage as only between a man and a woman.

• Maryland

  The gay marriage bill was signed into law by Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) on March 1, 2012. Opponents have since gathered enough signatures to force the issue back onto the ballot in November 2012. If the referendum fails, same-sex marriage ceremonies are set to begin on January 1, 2013.

• Washington

  On February 13, 2012, Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) signed a law allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies to begin on June 7, 2012. The process was delayed by gay marriage opponents who gathered enough signatures to put the issue up to a state vote in November 2012.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/dick-cheney-gay-marriage_n_1718779.html

WASHINGTON |
Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:37pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Democratic Party is aiming to include support for gay marriage in its party platform this year for the first time in its history, a Democratic source said on Monday.

The platform drafting committee unanimously approved language on Sunday endorsing same-sex marriage among the policy positions that will be presented to the convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, where President Barack Obama will formally accept the party’s nomination in early September to run for re-election.

The approval was first reported in The Washington Blade, which said the language also rejected the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996 that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman and denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

The Obama administration said last year it would no longer support DOMA. Obama’s Republican opponent, Republican Mitt Romney, is a gay-marriage opponent who supports the statute and promises to defend “traditional marriage” if he is elected on November 6.

In May, Obama became the first U.S. president to say he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The largest U.S. civil rights group, the NAACP, has also endorsed gay marriage, saying the fight for gay rights is a civil rights issue.

Six U.S. states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage, but 30 have banned it.

The 15-member Democratic Party platform drafting committee met in Minneapolis during the weekend. A draft will be considered in Detroit on August 10, and it will then go to convention delegates for final approval.

Religious conservatives, an important component of the Republican Party base, staunchly oppose gay marriage, but polls show support for the issue rising, especially among younger Americans.

(Reporting By Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Article source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-usa-campaign-gaymarriage-idUSBRE86T1AZ20120730

Democrats over the weekend put themselves on track to endorse a pro-gay marriage plank for their convention platform, but neither the party nor the Obama campaign wanted to talk about it Monday.

Six states have legalized gay marriage and three more have legalization measures on the ballot for the fall, but the gradual increase in acceptance of the issue hasn’t done anything to mitigate its political touchiness this election year. Though legalization is seen as a major boost to Democratic efforts to energize the base and stoke fundraising among an active LGBT donor community, wide swaths of voters — including in many swing states — remain opposed.

Continue Reading

Both parties, however, have steered clear of making it into a central issue of the campaign, with Democrats wary of setting off a damaging culture war and Republicans wary of looking noninclusive.

(PHOTOS: 20 gay rights milestones)

But even the platform plank — something LGBT activists had sought — sparked some worries. The platform is set to be adopted, after all, at the party convention in North Carolina, which in May passed a referendum banning gay marriage. Obama’s long-sought endorsement of gay marriage came the next day, increasing momentum for the effort.

The 15-member Democratic Party platform draft committee unanimously approved the pro-gay marriage language at its meeting over the weekend in Minneapolis and sent the platform draft to the full platform committee, which meets in Detroit in two weeks.

“I don’t think that we had any issues that were controversial,� one member of the committee said Monday. “I think we were pretty much in sync and in agreement with where we ended up.�

Still, former Rep. Travis Childers, a Mississippi Democrat who was unseated in the 2010 tea party wave, said Blue Dog Democrats like himself would be hesitant to support pro-gay marriage language.

“It is not something that I would agree with, that part of the platform,� Childers said Monday. “I think the conservative Democrats, especially in the South, a great number will disagree with that.�

(Also on POLITICO: Politicians weigh in on Chick-fil-A gay marriage controversy)

White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to discuss the issue at Monday’s press briefing.

“The president’s position on this view has been well-chronicled, shall we say,� Earnest said. “But in terms of a specific reaction to the platform, I’d refer you to my colleagues at the DNC.�

But a DNC representative offered no comment in response to questions.

“The president’s personal views on marriage equality are known,� Obama campaign spokeswoman Clo Ewing said, repeating a statement the campaign made last week before the committee met. “The president and the party are committed to crafting a platform that reflects the president’s positions and the values of the party.�

Mitt Romney, who has supported gay issues in the past but never gay marriage, made no specific comment on the platform Monday.

“Gov. Romney has been consistent in his support for traditional marriage,� spokesman Ryan Williams said.

It will take time for conservative Democrats to endorse gay marriage, said Winnie Stachelberg of the Center for American Progress.

“It’s reflective of the issue itself that in fact this is an issue that people have struggled with,� she said. “And I think that elected officials at every level in every place have struggled with it. They’ve gotten to a place as a party where a lot of people feel comfortable with it.�

Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), an openly gay member of Congress, predicted the platform plank won’t hurt Obama — because voters already know his position — or members of Congress up for reelection who are squeamish on the issue.

“If it’s not their position, then I don’t think that voters will take that into account,� Polis said. “Each candidate running for office, whether a Democrat or a Republican, has positions that they stand for. Sometimes those are in agreement with party platform, sometimes not.�

But Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, was less circumspect. Endorsing gay marriage, he said, will cost Democrats in elections up and down the ballot.

“They can kiss the presidential election, the House and now the Senate goodbye,� he said.

Brown acknowledged the move will help Democrats raise money from gay donors but said backers of traditional marriage will be even more motivated.

“He can collect all the money he wants from San Francisco and Hollywood,� he said. “But at the end of the day, San Francisco and Hollywood don’t elect the president of the United States.�

Heather Cronk of Get Equal said Monday that Obama and Democrats must go beyond merely accepting gay marriage.

“Now it’s time for the president to again lead by example and make unmistakably clear that not only does he support LGBT equality when campaign coffers are low, but that he will do everything in his power to make LGBT Americans equal,� Cronk said. “We need more than platitudes and platforms — we need real, concrete change.�

Article source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79126.html?hp=l3

WASHINGTON — Dick Cheney says he didn’t see the point of raising the issue of gay marriage in the 2000 presidential campaign, even though he supported it.

The former vice president suggested it wouldn’t have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush’s prospects for office. “Why?” he responded to ABC News when asked in a televised interview whether he should have pushed harder for gay couples to marry.

Cheney’s daughter, Mary, married her longtime partner this June.

Cheney said of the wedding: “I’m sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them.”

Article source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57482763/cheney-defends-his-silence-on-gay-marriage-in-2000/

Democrats took an initial step toward endorsing same-sex marriage for the first time in its party platform.

If approved by the full platform committee in August, the plank on gay marriage would mark the first time such a recommendation is included in a major-party platform.

The party would then have to ratify the language at the Democratic National Convention, running Sept. 3-6 in Charlotte, where President Obama will be formally nominated.

“Like Americans from all walks of life, the Democratic Party has recognized that committed and loving gay and lesbian couples deserve the right to have their relationships respected as equal under the law,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement. “I believe that one day very soon the platforms of both major parties will include similar language on this issue. There is no more American value than honoring and protecting one’s family.”

Gay marriage is one of those heated, social issues that separate President Obama and Mitt Romney. In May, Obama changed the dynamics of the gay marriage debate when he said publicly for the first time that same-sex marriage should be legal. Romney is opposed to gay marriage.

The decision by the Democrats’ platform-drafting panel was first reported by The Washington Blade. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told the Blade there was a “unanimous decision” by the platform-drafting committee at its meeting this weekend to include the gay-marriage plank.

An unnamed Democratic official would not comment to the Associated Press on the specific language of the gay-marriage plank.

The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, told the AP that it would rally supporters of “traditional marriage” to ensure this is a key issue in the presidential election.

Article source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/gay-marriage-democratic-platform-barney-frank-/1?csp=34news

Article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/democrats-add-gay-marriage-to-party-platform/2012/07/30/gJQAkvqxKX_blog.html

Editor’s Note: Steve McDonagh owns and operates Hearty Restaurant and The Hearty Boys Caterers with his partner, Dan Smith. In addition to winning the first season of Food Network’s hit series “Food Network Star,” Smith and McDonagh live in Chicago with their son, Nate.

I am not a Dan Cathy basher. I respect Chick-fil-A’s Chief Operating Officer for taking an honest stand and putting his business in the line of fire by clarifying the company’s stance on gay marriage.

It takes guts to be responsible for your words. It takes a person of conviction who is willing to bear the repercussions from those who dislike what he has to say. And in a political climate where our politicians are afraid to say anything off-prompter, lest it be twisted and dissected for hidden meaning, the responsible are difficult to find.

I’ve been vocal about my political and social convictions for years. My guess is that Cathy would be surprised at how much he and I have in common.

Like Cathy, my partner’s and my business plan has always been intertwined with our personal lives. The Hearty Boys are Dan and Steve; they can’t be separated. Even our closest friends refer to us as The Hearty Boys, as in “we’re going to The Hearty Boys for dinner because Mike Huckabee didn’t respond to their dinner invitation, so there’s an extra seat.”

Like Cathy, we are a family-run business. We cherish the remembered moments of covering our son in a fresh tablecloth when meetings and naptime collided, know the exhaustion of late night pillow talk being business-related, and the pride we felt when Nate first said he wants to someday run the business (be warned, he wants to make it a combo Chinese takeout and veterinary clinic).

Like Cathy, we use the power of our brand to back up our beliefs – and this is where the tricky part of responsibility starts. Unlike the nameless Internet ninjas, what we say not only reflects on us as individuals but onto our businesses. And by “business,â€? I don’t mean just our bottom line but the people who work for us and those that do business with us. How does what Steve McDonagh says reflect on someone who holds a position in The Hearty Boys? How does what Dan Cathy says make his gay and lesbian employees feel? Or gay and lesbian franchise owners? Or gay and lesbian stockholders?

Like Cathy, “we want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families.”  But when Dan Cathy says “strengthen families,â€? he’s excluding my family: Dan, Steve and Nate. He means except Abby, Julie and Carly, or Brad, John, Max and Jack-Jack. We obviously don’t fall under the “familiesâ€? heading and we must be marginalized.

No longer.

So, when Mike Huckabee called for August 1 to be Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, we decided to make August 1 Chick-fil-Gay Appreciation Day at Hearty Restaurant in Chicago. When a guest purchases a fried chicken sandwich with pickles on a toasted buttered bun, the proceeds will go directly to Equality Illinois to help families that some feel don’t deserve strengthening.

And here the similarities completely end. Unlike Cathy, I have no interest in alienating my client base or offending my guests. I run on a business plan of inclusion. A Chick-fil-A statement stressed that the chain is inclusive as well. Its more than 1,600 stores are committed to treating gay and lesbian employees and guests with the same “honor, dignity and respect� that they give everyone else, but my community knows better. There’s no honor, dignity and respect in thanking a client for a purchase and using LGBT dollars to fund programs aimed at destroying our families.

Finally, we stand on different sides of history. Sadly, Dan Cathy is on the wrong side. Cathy can refer to us a “prideful and arrogant,� but I think those words are well-suited to those who sit in judgment and speak for their version of God. Sixty years of civil rights history teach us that basic human rights will always win out. You can’t stop equal rights anymore than you can take back that seat on the bus. This is our new reality. You can’t stop progress, as the man says.

The tide has changed, and the escalating shouts we hear are the cries of the self-righteous who never imagined they’d be the ones fighting the current.

More on Chick-fil-A and religion:

A social media storm over Chick-fil-A

Overheard on CNN.com: Readers defend Chick-fil-A

Ed Helms has beef with Chick-fil-A

Eatocracy: Fast food with a side of faith 

10 religious companies besides Chick-fil-A

Chick-fil-A controversy sheds light on restaurant’s Christian DNA

Article source: http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion-why-im-celebrating-chick-fil-gay-appreciation-day/?hpt=li_c2

Dick Cheney says he didn’t see the point of raising the issue of gay marriage in the 2000 presidential campaign, even though he supported it.

The former vice president suggested it wouldn’t have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush’s prospects for office. “Why?” he responded to ABC News when asked in a televised interview whether he should have pushed harder for gay couples to marry.

Cheney’s daughter, Mary, married her longtime partner this June.

Cheney said of the wedding: “I’m sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them.”

Article source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cheney-defends-silence-gay-marriage-2000-16884847

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos waded into a developing corporate culture war over gay marriage Friday with a $2.5 million donation to keep same-sex unions legal in Washington, becoming the latest in a list of high-profile executives to take public stands on a hot election issue.

Bezos joins Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and companies like Starbucks and Nike with support to the campaign to uphold Washington’s law. And while fast-food chain Chick-fil-A set off a furor opposing same-sex unions this month, other companies — including big names like General Mills and Nabisco — are brushing off fears that support for gay marriage could hurt their bottom line.

Gay rights advocates say the activism sends a strong message.

“Companies are a bellwether of what is in the mainstream,” said Marc Solomon, the national campaign manager for Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that advocates for same-sex marriage. “When you have some of the mainstays of corporate leadership stand up, that’s important. It sends a powerful message about where our society is right now.”

Solomon and other national advocates say the donation by Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, is the largest publicly reported gift to support a gay marriage ballot measure, noting that some gay marriage opponents have tried to shield their donor lists.

Washington is one of four states with gay marriage measures on the ballot this

November. Washington and Maryland both legalized gay marriage this year, but will also have public referendums this fall. In Maine, voters will decide on an initiative to approve same-sex marriage three years after voters overturned a state law. In Minnesota, voters will decide whether to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Food giant General Mills, based in the Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley, Minn., publicly spoke out against the state’s proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage, as well as Thomson Reuters, and St. Jude Medical, and executives including the co-owners of the Minnesota Twins. Even more national brands — Nabisco, J.C. Penney and Minnesota-based Target among them — have stuck with recent, gay-themed advertising.

John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S., has pressed Minnesota companies and executives to oppose the state’s proposed amendment, saying it’s simply good business.

“We’re all competing for talent, we’re trying to recruit and retain the best people out there,” Taft said. “If you’re going to be successful in business, you have to do diversity well. The world is becoming more diverse, not less diverse.”

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy angered gay rights advocates this month with another position, saying the company was “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.”

Gay rights groups urged a boycott and the mayors of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco spoke out against the chain; Christian conservatives promised to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next week on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

In March, after a shareholders’ meeting of Seattle-based Starbucks, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage announced a “Dump Starbucks” protest and called for a boycott of the coffee giant. Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson said its business hasn’t been affected.

Janet Bezdicek, a suburban Minnesota mother of five, said she’s taken Cheerios off her shopping list because of General Mills’ stance.

“We’re talking about a definition of something that’s been upheld for centuries. To be challenged by a corporation, that’s not appropriate,” she said.

But there’s little evidence that a conservative-mounted boycott over gay rights issues has tanked a company’s stock or made a noticeable dent in its profits, said Andy Bagnall, a New York City advertising executive who advises corporations on cultivating the gay community.

Article source: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21178532/gay-marriage-fight-some-brands-take-stand

July has certainly been the month for a whole lot of heat and a bit of gay bashing — except the ones doing bashing are actually the gays. Apparently we can give as good as we get — case in point Sally Ride and Anderson Cooper.

Sally Ride is dead, and a lesbian, who knew? Apparently her family, friends and co-workers all knew, but the “world” didn’t. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast recently labeled her “the absent heroine.” Well, personally, I think he got that wrong. She may not have been a gay icon, but Sally Ride gave hope to girls everywhere — letting them know that they too could “go where no one has gone before” and do it well, with dignity, courage, intelligence and a good dose of humility. It’s easy to point fingers at individuals who opt for personal privacy, especially if they’re dead, but do they deserve all this backlash?

Aren’t they entitled to privacy, just like straight people? We have no idea about the hows or whys of her decision, but I’m sure there are lots of variables involved. Her sister Bear Ride, a very out lesbian, explained it by saying, “She was just a private person who wanted to do things her way.” Does that mean her decision was driven by homophobia? Or is it just what her sister suggests — a desire to be out of the spotlight?

Perhaps for Sally Ride being gay was just that — “being gay” — and maybe that was enough, but these days in some circles individuals who opt to go that route for whatever reason are more often or not vilified. But frankly, it’s not the pre-’90s anymore, when being gay was really hard. Not that it’s easy now, but it is easier in the U.S. and Europe, that’s for sure. Sometimes I forget how hard, and often dangerous, it actually was back then. For Sally Ride being the lesbian astronaut back in the day, especially those days, would have certainly taken her out of the running for future missions, or even put her life at risk given the climate.

On the other hand, Anderson Cooper came out and started a brouhaha that certainly riled people up, many suggesting that he had no right to a personal life, and that he was hiding his “gayness” to make money and build a career. Well, for many of us in New York City who’ve seen Cooper “being gay” around town, it wasn’t a big surprise or revelation. More often than not when he’s in town he can be found at the Eastern Block, the gay bar his lover owns. But you can actually see them all over town, so if it was a secret it wasn’t a very well kept at all.

He suggested one of his reasons for keeping the fact that he’s gay private was to protect himself because he, like Ride, was going into dangerous and uncharted territory — and they really were. For Ride it was space; for Cooper, the Middle East and other war-torn areas around the world, where combatants — whether ours or theirs — were not what you would call gay-friendly, or women-friendly for that matter. Who can forget CBS reporter Lara Logan, who was attacked and raped during the Egyptian uprising?

The other night I watched Soldier Boy after a late night on the town, in which the main character, an infantry soldier, falls for a trangender woman — which is not okay in the military, just about on par with being gay. What struck me about the movie besides the fact that it was incredibly hot, thought-provoking and heartfelt, was that the soldier didn’t know if he was gay or not, but he simply wanted to live his life — saying over and over again to his homophobic and probably gay cross-dressing roommate, “everyone is entitled to a private life — right?” Isn’t that what we all want? In the end the answer to his question was no, because he paid the ultimate price for his private life.

And yes, people say Cooper didn’t announce it sooner because he wanted to make lots of money and build his career, but the truth be told, Anderson Cooper is, and always has been loaded –he’s Gloria Vanderbilt’s son, after all, complete with a huge trust fund. But when it came to getting his career started he didn’t take the easy way out. Cooper faked a press pass, got into Myanmar, met with students fighting the Burmese government, taped it, and ultimately sold his homemade news segments to the now defunct Channel One. He could have easily been arrested or worse while he was in Myanmar — now, in my world, that takes balls.

In fact, it took balls for him and Ride to do what they did professionally. Many of the bloggers, writers and others weighing in on this topic do so, like myself, from their computer terminals, safe and sound, in their apartment, a coffee shop or office, and not in the midst of battle or while in space.

Does the fact that you live a good life, are kind, work hard — or are a hero as in Sally Ride’s case — become moot because you don’t come out? I hope not. In fact, while I think that coming out when you’re a celebrity, politician, sports star or even an astronaut has far-ranging and extremely positive effects, we shouldn’t sit in judgment of each other, or invalidate the contributions made by individuals who opt to have a private life, that’s truly private. With all the brouhaha it’s easy to forget that both Cooper and Ride came out — just in their own way, in their own time.

As for Sally Ride being an absent heroine — that’s wrong. She was, and is, a hero — ask any woman who grew up in the ’80s.

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dar-dowling/gay-bash_b_1719379.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york

WASHINGTON — Dick Cheney says he didn’t see the point of raising the issue of gay marriage in the 2000 presidential campaign, even though he supported it.

The former vice president suggested it wouldn’t have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush’s prospects for office. “Why?” he responded to ABC News when asked in a televised interview whether he should have pushed harder for gay couples to marry.

Cheney’s daughter, Mary, married her longtime partner this June.

Cheney said of the wedding: “I’m sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them.”

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120730/us-cheney-gay-marriage/

This is a guest post by Wendy S. Goffe, a trusts and estates lawyer with Stoel Rives in Seattle. You can follow her on Twitter.

Credit: Bloomberg/Getty Images

I love Amazon. I love that I can buy rain boots for my daughter, groceries, a book, and replace a piece of computer equipment when our cat has made the last one into a toy in one click.  Since Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie, announced their donation of $2.5 million in support of Washington’s gay marriage legislation this week, I feel even better about that one-click.

Bezos likely timed his donation announcement to coincide with President Obama’s visit to Seattle, the home of Amazon’s headquarters, on Tuesday. It comes at a time when gay marriage is starting to be viewed not as a personal choice issue for homosexual couples, but an important human rights issue that affects every citizen. Some advocates analogize it to racial intermarriage, segregation and most recently “don’t ask don’t tell� in the military.

With each of those causes, the country reached a tipping point, where, whether or not any of these issues affected them personally, the prevailing sentiment was that the laws were fundamentally wrong and need to be changed.

The Bezos gift also comes at a critical time for Washington state. Referendum 74 will be on Washington’s ballot on November 6^. A “Yes� vote would affirm a law that passed earlier this year in the Legislature and was signed by Governor Christine Gregoire, legalizing same-sex marriage. That law would have gone into effect on June 7, but was postponed pending the outcome of the November election. This is a hard and expensive battle. With such meaningful financial support, it now has a fighting chance.

Financial support of gay marriage has been largely a gay community proposition. The straight community has in no way been silent. (See my post, “How I Became The Straight Lady For Gay Marriage.�)  Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates both contributed $100,000 to the cause. But Bezos is the first person to do so in such a large and public way.

Straight people with influence have supported gay marriage for years. Frank Rich has used his column in the New York Times to advocate for same-sex marriage. Cher has long been a champion of the gay community. And more recently since Chaz transitioned to being a male, she has created more openness to the transgender community among those who previously may not have recognized there was such a thing.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, while now engaged, have reportedly postponed marriage until same-sex marriage is legal under federal law. Pitt also gave $100,000 to fight Proposition 8 in 2009. Other straight celebrity supporters include Cyndi Lauper, Clint Eastwood, Drew Barrymore, Kate Winslet, Anne Hathaway, Julianne Moore, Steven Spielberg, Miley Cyrus, Sean Penn, Pink, Russell Simmons, Natalie Portman, Jennifer Anniston and George Clooney.

A 42-page Wikipedia entry lists supporters of same-sex marriage in political parties, elected positions and groups and individuals in positions of power. Notable politicians on the list include Barak Obama (who first announced his support in May of this year), Jimmy Carter and former President Bill Clinton. Gavin Newsome, now California’s Lieutenant Governor, performed marriages on the steps of City Hall when he was Mayor of San Francisco and essentially began California’s marriage fight.

The Bezos gift is special both because of its size and because the couple are straight. While the straight community has been generous with support, it hasn’t necessarily been as generous with its dollars. Others have given large sums over many years or aggregated larger sums collected from multiple contributors. This is one of the largest known individual gifts.

One can only hope that this is the beginning of a trend. Same-sex marriage is not a gay issue–it is a human rights issue. If we care about human rights, we all need to do what we can to change the status quo. For those who can afford it, this includes not just public service announcements, public endorsements, and abstaining from marriage. It also includes adding funds to the coffers of organizations fighting the fight.

Article source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2012/07/28/jeff-bezos-kicks-straight-support-for-gay-marriage-up-a-notch/

The state has ordered dramatic changes at a Brooklyn LGBT social-services organization where a Health Department probe recently uncovered “weaknesses in fiscal policies and internal controls,� The Post has learned.

GRIOT Circle, founded in 1995 as Gay Reunion in Our Time to serve an older gay community, “is addressing the issues identified,� said department spokesman Jeffrey Hammond.

GRIOT did not respond to messages. Its 2010 tax returns show a budget drop from $324,000 to $269,000, and a $50,000 loss in assets — even as salaries shot up from $160,000 to $240,000.

“We’re going backwards,� a whistleblower told The Post. “A lot of the programs we’re supposed to have we don’t have; they’re not operating. It’s really one big mess. We tell people we serve 70 people a day; I haven’t seen 70 people a month. That’s a big lie . . . It’s a shame.�

Article source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/gay_group_under_fire_y8LgOfXVNylxR4HdqQyiUK

OLYMPIA, Wash. ? OLYMPIA, Wash. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos waded into a developing corporate culture war over gay marriage Friday with a $2.5 million donation to keep same-sex unions legal in Washington, becoming the latest in a list of high-profile executives to take public stands on a hot election issue.

Bezos joins Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and companies like Starbucks Inc. and Nike Inc. with support to the campaign to uphold Washington’s law. And while fast-food chain Chick-fil-A set off a furor opposing same-sex unions this month, other companies — including big names like General Mills and Nabisco — are brushing off fears that support for gay marriage could hurt their bottom line.

Gay-rights advocates say the activism sends a strong message.

“Companies are a bellwether of what is in the mainstream,” said Marc Solomon, the national campaign manager for Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that advocates for same-sex marriage. “When you have some of the mainstays of corporate leadership stand up, that’s important. It sends a powerful message about where our society is right now.”

Solomon and other national advocates say the donation by Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, is the largest publicly reported gift to support a gay-marriage ballot measure, noting that some gay-marriage opponents have tried to shield their donor lists.

Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy angered gay-rights advocates this month with another position, saying the company was “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.” He later added, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”

Gay-rights groups urged a boycott and the mayors of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco spoke out against the chain; Christian conservatives promised to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next week on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

According to chick-fil-a.com, the company has 23 Arizona locations.

Conservatives have also targeted companies in the Pacific Northwest that threw public support for the Washington law allowing gay marriage, up for a November referendum.

Washington is one of four states with gay-marriage measures on the ballot this November. Washington and Maryland both legalized gay marriage this year but will also have public referendums this fall. In Maine, voters will decide on an initiative to approve same-sex marriage three years after voters overturned a state law. And in Minnesota, voters will decide whether to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

Food giant General Mills Inc., based in the Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley, Minn., publicly spoke out against the state’s proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage, as well as Thomson Reuters, and St. Jude Medical, and executives including the co-owners of the Minnesota Twins. Even more national brands — Nabisco, J.C. Penney and Target among them — have stuck with recent, gay-themed advertising.

John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S., has pressed Minnesota companies and executives to oppose the state’s proposed amendment , saying it’s simply good business.

“We’re all competing for talent, we’re trying to recruit and retain the best people out there,” Taft said. “If you’re going to be successful in business, you have to do diversity well. The world is becoming more diverse, not less diverse.”

In March, after a shareholders’ meeting of Seattle-based Starbucks, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage announced a “Dump Starbucks” protest and called for a boycott of the coffee giant. Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson said its business hasn’t been affected.

Last month, Gates and Microsoft co-founder Steve Ballmer donated $100,000 apiece to the campaign defending gay marriage. Keeping the law in place “would be good for our business and the state’s economy,” Microsoft spokeswoman Serina Hall said in an email.

In Minnesota, a number of executives have donated large sums to defeating the state’s amendment that would ban gay marriage. State law already outlaws gay marriage, but supporters say the amendment is needed to fend off future legal challenges.

Posted

Article source: http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012-07-28-BCUSChickfilACulture-Wars2nd-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

The debate over whether gay people should be allowed to marry seems to be one that dwells on the fringes.

At one end there is a bunch of people who are aggressively pushing for it to be passed into law. Then, at a point as far away as possible, is a group of people who are battling just as hard for it not to happen.

Then, in the middle are a massive majority of people who actually don’t care either way; stay the same, make a change, it just doesn’t affect or bother them. But on the two sides of the battle, the two more passionate groups are willing to make enough noise to make it look as if everyone has strong views on the matter. The truth is, a lot of people don’t.

Last week, Labour MP Louisa Wall’s member’s bill was drawn from the ballot, and could be debated as early as next month.

Early indications show that it has the numbers to be passed into law, much to the joy of one group and much to the dismay of another. The saddest part of the debate is the lack of it.

Instead, pro gay-marriage people paint their ideological adversaries as puritanical fundamentalist Christians, who hope all non-heterosexuals burn in hell. Conversely, the anti gay-marriage people portray their rivals as over-the-top flamboyant mega-liberals who only want to destroy the social fabric and the family unit as we know it.

While there may be minute numbers of each zealot grouping, those depictions are miles from the truth.

What we have are two systems of belief that simply will never see eye to eye and it turns into personal attack, rather than a debate about the pros and cons of gay marriage.

There seems to be no respect on either side for the beliefs held, and there needs to be. If gay marriage is not enshrined in legislation this time around, it is only a matter of time. The ground-breaking Civil Union Act 2004 paved the way for gay marriage, so why not a step further?

Those who were against civil unions feared all kinds of horrible things would happen to our society if that proposal passed into law.

Guess what? Those things never happened.

The only real impact was that couples got the chance to live the lives they wanted to. Allowing gay marriage is the next natural step in that progression.

Nick Willis was a great choice for New Zealand’s flag bearer. At his third Games he earned the right to do it. He also seems like the kind of athlete who will be boosted by the honour and hopefully that transfers into medal contention. Hopefully, he can do one better than his achievement at Beijing four years ago.

– © Fairfax NZ News

SHARE

Sponsored links

Article source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/7375963/Editorial-Gay-marriage-a-natural-flow

• 

  Enlarge Photo

  Dinh Thi Hong Loan, 30, (left) holds the hand of her girlfriend, … more 

Facebook

Follow @washtimes

HANOI — Dinh Thi Hong Loan grasps her girlfriend’s hand, and the two gaze into each other’s love-struck eyes. Smiling, they talk about their upcoming wedding — how they will exchange rings and toast the beginning of their lives together.

The lesbians’ marriage ceremony in the Vietnamese capital won’t be officially recognized, but that could soon change. Vietnam’s Communist government is considering whether to allow same-sex couples to marry or legally register and receive rights — positioning the country to be the first in Asia to do so.

Even longtime gay-rights activists are stunned by the Justice Ministry’s proposal to include same-sex couples in its overhaul of the country’s marriage law.

No one knows what form it will take or whether it will survive long enough to be debated before the National Assembly next year, but supporters say the fact that it’s even being considered is a victory in a region where simply being gay can result in jail sentences or whippings with a rattan cane.

“I think everyone is surprised,� said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay-rights activist. “Even if it’s not successful it’s already making history. For me, personally, I think it’s going to go through.�

Vietnam seems an unlikely champion of gay-rights issues. It is routinely lambasted by the international community over its dismal human rights record, often locking up political dissidents who call for democracy or religious freedom.

Up until just a few years ago, homosexuality was labeled as a “social evil� alongside drug addiction and prostitution.

And Vietnam’s gay community itself was once so underground that few groups or meeting places existed. It was taboo to even talk about the issue.

But over the past five years, that’s slowly started to change. Vietnam’s state-run media, unable to write about politically sensitive topics or openly criticize the one-party government, have embraced the chance to explore gay issues. They have run lengthy newspaper stories and television broadcasts, including one live special that won a top award.

Video of Vietnam’s first publicized gay wedding went viral online in 2010, and a few other ceremonies followed, capturing widespread public attention.

The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,� Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.�

Globally, 11 countries have legalized same-sex marriage since the Netherlands became the first to do so in 2001. Only a few U.S. states allow it, but President Obama provided hope for many couples worldwide after announcing his support earlier this year.

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Article source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/29/vietnam-may-open-the-door-for-gay-marriage-equal-r/

• OPPOSING VIEW: Our politically unpopular trail

Standing athwart this trend is the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), which announced this month that it will continue its policy of excluding gay and lesbian members and leaders. An 11-member panel concluded that exclusion is “absolutely the best policy” for the more than century-old organization.

Talk about out of step.

The 2.7-million member BSA preaches kindness, loyalty and bravery, and its oath urges Scouts “to help other people at all times.” Yet intolerance of gays and lesbians apparently overrides these values.

This isn’t a legal issue. The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that, as a private organization, the Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude openly gay people. Freedom of association, the court said, plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.

But just because an organization can do something doesn’t mean it should. Groups such as the Girl Scouts, Jaycees, Rotary and 4-H Club have all successfully adopted non-discrimination policies. That leaves the Boy Scouts as an outlier.

USATODAY OPINION

About Editorials/Debate

Opinions expressed in USA TODAY’s editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY’s news staff.

Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board’s point of view.

In explaining its policy, Scouting seems to miss the point by saying it is not a sex-education organization. No one is suggesting that it should be. Scouting’s critics simply want it to be inclusive and neutral.

Another largely unspoken concern involves the fear of unwanted sexual advances, or worse. Perhaps Scout leaders should consult the American Psychological Association, which says, “Homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are. … There is no scientific support for fears about children of gay or lesbian parents being abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances.”

In fact, as the Jerry Sandusky scandal showed, many pedophiles are married men. So under the BSA policy, Sandusky would have been, on paper, the perfect Scout leader: Husband. Football coach. Counselor to troubled youth. Pillar of the community. At the same time, the astronaut Sally Ride, a national hero who died last week, could have been excluded as a den leader because of her longtime same-sex relationship.

This isn’t just a hypothetical exercise. In Bridgeport, Ohio, den leader Jen Tyrrell was removed from her post in April because she is a lesbian. Families whose children were in Tyrrell’s den say she was an exceptional leader for the 7- and 8-year-old Tiger Cubs.

“My sexuality was never an issue,” Tyrrell says. “I was never ‘gay’ den leader Jen, just den leader Jen.” Tyrrell says she agrees that sexuality has no place being discussed in Scouting, but she feels that excluding someone because of sexual orientation sends a bad message to children about humane treatment of people.

Scouting has a long, successful tradition of molding boys and young men into civic leaders and productive members of society. It is hard to argue with the results; four former presidents and thousands of lawmakers and CEOs are alumni.

Even so, as the U.S. military figured out, an organization dedicated to integrity, teamwork and leadership benefits by being inclusive. Instead, the Boy Scouts of America has thrown its lot with a dwindling band of groups that place a higher premium on discrimination.

Article source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-07-29/Boy-Scouts-anti-gay-policy/56579714/1

Vietnam’s Communist government is
considering whether to legalize gay marriage. If approved, Vietnam
would become the first country in Asia to do so.

The AP reported that the country’s
Justice Ministry is considering including gay couples in its overhaul
of Vietnam’s marriage law.

“I think, as far as human rights are
concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,â€� said Justice
Minister Ha Hung Cuong on Tuesday. “The number of homosexuals has
mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They
live together without registering marriage. They may own property.
We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.�

The move stunned regional gay rights
activists.

“I think everyone is surprised,�
said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay rights activist. “Even if
it’s not successful, it’s already making history. For me,
personally, I think it’s going to go through.â€�

Being gay in Vietnam can result in a
jail sentence or whipping with a rattan cane, the AP noted.

With an estimated 91.5 million
inhabitants, Vietnam ranks as the world’s 13^th
most-populous nation.

Gay rights activists in Hanoi will hold
the country’s first gay pride parade on August 5.

The Justice Ministry will first
consider the opinions from the public along with government agencies
before deciding whether to recommend marriage or some other legal
recognition for gay couples to the National Assembly.

Article source: http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12533&MediaType=1&Category=24

The Vatican dealt a huge blow to the Bay Area’s fight for gay rights on Friday, naming Salvatore Cordileone–one of the California’s leading opponents of same-sex marriage and a creator of Proposition 8–the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Cordileone has served as the bishop of Oakland since 2009. In a Vatican announcement on Friday morning, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Cordileone to his new post across the Bay.

“I am pleased to welcome Archbishop-elect Cordileone,” said the departing Archbishop George Niederauer during the announcement. “And to assure him of our prayers, loyalty, support and cooperation, as well as our friendship and affection.”

(SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO)

Cordileone will officially take his post on October 4. As Archbishop, he will oversee bishops in San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Reno, Oakland, Stockton, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Reno and Salt Lake City.

Cordileone made headlines in 2008 when he helped draft Proposition 8, calling same-sex marriage “a plot by the evil one” to destroy the world during a radio interview. According to ABC, he personally donated at least $6,000 to the 2008 ban, and is currently the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

His appointment to the San Francisco position came as a surprise and immediately drew controversy from the gay community.

“This isn’t a marriage made in heaven,” said state assemblyman Tom Ammiano to the San Francisco Chronicle. Ammiano represents San Francisco and is gay.

The Huffington Post contacted Most Holy Redeemer Church, a parish in the Castro known for its inclusive community, for a statement. Father Brian Costello, the pastor at the parish, said that the church did not yet have a comment, but that he would be sharing a few words about the appointment at Sunday mass.

Watch CBS’s video on Salvatore Cordileone’s appointment below:

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/salvatore-cordileone-gay-marriage_n_1712224.html

WASHINGTON — For years, there was a widespread perception that AIDS just affected gay, white men and heroin users.

The perception was never really accurate, but now a new report shows that, in fact, young, black gay and bisexual men are more likely to be infected with HIV than any other segment of the United States population. And each year, the number of infections is increasing.

The report presented at the International AIDS Conference this week in Washington D.C., by the Fenway Institute, shows that in the United States, black men who have sex with men are nearly twice as likely than their white counterparts to get infected; in the same category, those younger than 30 are more than three times as likely to get infected. Each year, the report found, nearly 6 percent of black gay or bisexual youth contract HIV.

At the conference, there were lengthy discussions about promising new HIV medications, but the hopefulness for some was diminished by the findings, which add to a mounting body of research painting the same picture. Young, black gay and bisexual men are also among the population least likely to have access to the groundbreaking new treatments.

Kenneth Mayer, the lead researcher on the study, said no one factor explained the higher rates of infection in this group. Rather, the researchers saw a confluence of factors like poverty, less education about safe sex, and less access to health care. “Obviously, there were some behavior risks,” Mayer explained, referring to men who have unprotected anal sex.

Unprotected sex is even riskier when it occurs among a highly affected population group, like black, gay men. But independent of that poverty and unemployment influenced a person’s chances of infection, too. “There are these overlapping epidemics that predispose people towards bad health outcomes,” Mayer said.

Jahlove Serrano knows about overlapping epidemics. He’s a black, gay, HIV-positive, 25-year-old AIDS activist and youth advocate. These days, with the help of medication, his health is under control. But for years, his life felt like chaos, and he got sicker and sicker. Sitting in the “Youth Pavilion” at the AIDS conference, Serrano explained that he was infected with HIV the night he lost his virginity in a one-night stand with an older man he met on Christopher Street, just a few days before his 16th birthday.

Before he lost his virginity, he had been living with his family in the Bronx, attending high school, and worrying about whether he could stay popular if he didn’t have sex, like the rest of the cool kids at school. But then his mother found out he was gay and kicked him out of the house. He had to drop out of school and start working at McDonalds to get by. “So just days into my 16th year, I’m homeless, HIV positive, a high school drop out, and had no one to really turn to,” Serrano summed up.

He didn’t get tested for a year after he contracted HIV, even though he heard a rumor that the one-night stand was positive, and he didn’t start regularly taking medication until four years later, after he was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS.

“I didn’t want to get my results, I didn’t want to know,” Serrano said.

After he found out he was positive, he sunk into depression. For years, he said, he avoided health clinics, and when he did go to the doctor, he would wear a sweatshirt with the hood pulled up so he wouldn’t be recognized. In those years, he didn’t understand the health-care options available, and didn’t see the point of seeking treatment. “I thought I was going to die,” he said.

Researchers still don’t know why young black men who sleep with men are at greater risk than their older counterparts, but as Mayer pointed out, not everyone who becomes infected at an early age engages in risky sex or has difficulty navigating the health care system.

“We know in general that there are some black gay men who are quite safe, and for them, it’s the perils of love and monogamy,” he said. “There are many different narratives.”

Tony Ray, 26, a black activist at the Bronx AIDS Institute, said some narratives are more difficult than others, and that can contribute to the ongoing stigma of the disease. Ray was infected when a condom broke during a one-night stand when he was 17. “In a really weird f—ed up way people judge you by this moral standard,” he said. “It’s like, ‘Oh the condom broke? I’m so sorry’. ‘Oh, you were having sex without condoms? Well, that was f—ing stupid’.”

Phil Wilson, the director of the Black AIDS Institute, has written frequently about how the dominant narrative about HIV as a gay, white man’s disease has contributed to rising rates of infection within the black community.

“Neither our national leaders, nor Black America itself, responded as they should have to the clear signs of an emerging health crisis among Black people. Few programs were put in place to address the HIV related needs of Black people in the epidemic’s early years,” WIlson wrote in a recent report. “Only during the third decade of AIDS was the epidemic considered to pose a “state of emergencyâ€� in Black America. By this point, Black people were more than seven times more likely than whites to become infected.”

In his outreach work with youth in the Bronx, Ray sees two dominant patterns among young people who are infected. Some think they are invincible, and that nothing can touch them, the others are defeatist.

“They think, ‘all the data shows that a good number of people my age are going to get it, so I might as well go out and get it’,” said Ray, who sees a doctor every three months, and has been on medication since 2008. “The only thing I can ask them is this: Why put yourself at risk when you can take care of yourself?”

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/hiv-black-gay-men-aids_n_1711988.html

The lesbians’ marriage ceremony in the Vietnamese capital won’t be officially recognized, but that could soon change. Vietnam’s Communist government is now considering whether to allow same-sex couples to marry or legally register and receive rights — positioning the country to be the first in Asia to do so.

“Our love for each other is real and nothing changes regardless of whether the law is passed or not,” said Loan, 31. “But when it is passed, we will definitely go get registered. I can’t wait!”

Even longtime gay-rights activists are stunned by the Justice Ministry’s proposal to include same-sex couples in its overhaul of the country’s marriage law. No one knows what form it will take or whether it will survive long enough to be debated before the National Assembly next year, but supporters say the fact that it’s even being considered is a victory in a region where simply being gay can result in jail sentences or whippings with a rattan cane.

“I think everyone is surprised,” said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay-rights activist. “Even if it’s not successful it’s already making history. For me, personally, I think it’s going to go through.”

Vietnam seems an unlikely champion of gay-rights issues. It is routinely lambasted by the international community over its dismal human rights record, often locking up political dissidents who call for democracy or religious freedom. Up until just a few years ago, homosexuality was labeled as a “social evil” alongside drug addiction and prostitution.

And Vietnam’s gay community itself was once so underground that few groups or meeting places existed. It was taboo to even talk about the issue.

But over the past five years, that’s slowly started to change. Vietnam’s state-run media, unable to write about politically sensitive topics or openly criticize the one-party government, have embraced the chance to explore gay issues. They have run lengthy newspaper stories and television broadcasts, including one live special that won a top award.

Video of Vietnam’s first publicized gay wedding went viral online in 2010, and a few other ceremonies followed, capturing widespread public attention. The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

Globally, 11 countries have legalized same-sex marriage since the Netherlands became the first to do so in 2001. Only a few U.S. states allow it, but President Barack Obama provided hope for many couples worldwide after announcing his support earlier this year.

The issue has remained largely off the table across Asia. In Thailand, many tourists see a vibrant gay, lesbian and transgender community, but it exists largely as part of the country’s lucrative entertainment industry, separated from politics and conservative Thai society.

Muslim-dominated nations such as Indonesia have strict laws against homosexuality. Sodomy can result in up to 20 years in jail and caning in Malaysia. But that hasn’t stopped some from continuing to fight for more rights and visibility.

In Singapore, more than 15,000 people — double last year’s turnout — recently held up pink lights in a park at night to support acceptance of the community in a modern city-state where gay sex remains illegal, even though the law is not enforced.

In Taiwan, a 2003 bill to recognize same-sex marriage failed to receive enough support to make it law, though a lesbian couple is expected to tie the knot in August at a Buddhist monastery.

Vietnam will also hold its first public gay pride parade Aug. 5 in Hanoi. The country is socially conservative, but the government restricts the kind of politicized religious movements that typically push back against same-sex marriage in other countries. Gay pride events also seem to pose little threat to Communist Party’s dominance.

The same-sex marriage proposal still has several hurdles before it could become law. The Justice Ministry will consider opinions from the public along with government agencies before submitting its draft proposal to the National Assembly next May on whether to recommend same-sex marriage or some other type of legal recognition with rights. Then, it must be approved by a majority of parliament.

“Some people told me if Vietnam could legalize it, it would be very good example for other counties to follow,” said Le Quang Binh, head of the nonprofit Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment, which is consulting on the marriage law. “People think that talking about it is a big step forward already. … I hope it will lead to more openness or tolerance for gays and lesbians in Vietnam.”

As for Vietnamese partners Loan and Nguyen Thi Chi, who share a one-room apartment down a narrow alley in Hanoi, they say their love and commitment is real, regardless of whether a law exists to recognize them when they marry next month. But they hope the new proposal will ease stigma that lingers around same-sex couples.

Chi, 20, knows the pain of discrimination all too well. She recently dropped out of college after being publicly outed by a note taped to one of her classroom doors saying she was “diseased.” She was harassed and bullied for a year and a half on campus until finally deciding she’d had enough.

“Things must change,” she said. “Even though it was not a nice experience, more and more people are interested in knowing about the community. And the more people that know about it, the more people will have a different view on it.”

Article source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-29/vietnam-gay-marriage/56573384/1

HANOI, Vietnam—Dinh Thi Hong Loan grasps her girlfriend’s hand, and the two gaze into each other’s love-struck eyes. Smiling, they talk about their upcoming wedding—how they’ll exchange rings and toast the beginning of their lives together.

The lesbians’ marriage ceremony in the Vietnamese capital won’t be officially recognized, but that could soon change. Vietnam’s Communist government is now considering whether to allow same-sex couples to marry or legally register and receive rights—positioning the country to be the first in Asia to do so.

“Our love for each other is real and nothing changes regardless of whether the law is passed or not,” said Loan, 31. “But when it is passed, we will definitely go get registered. I can’t wait!”

Even longtime gay-rights activists are stunned by the Justice Ministry’s proposal to include same-sex couples in its overhaul of the country’s marriage law. No one knows what form it will take or whether it will survive long enough to be debated before the National Assembly next year, but supporters say the fact that it’s even being considered is a victory in a region where simply being gay can result in jail sentences or whippings with a rattan cane.

“I think everyone is surprised,” said Vien Tanjung, an Indonesian gay-rights activist. “Even if it’s not successful it’s already making history. For me, personally, I think it’s going to go through.”

Vietnam seems an unlikely champion of gay-rights issues. It is routinely lambasted by the international community over its dismal human rights record, often locking up political dissidents who call for democracy or religious freedom. Up until just a few years ago, homosexuality was labeled as a “social evil” alongside drug addiction and prostitution.

And Vietnam’s gay community itself was once so underground that few groups or meeting places existed. It was taboo to even talk about the issue.

But over the past five years, that’s slowly started to change. Vietnam’s state-run media, unable to write about politically sensitive topics or openly criticize the one-party government, have embraced the chance to explore gay issues. They have run lengthy newspaper stories and television broadcasts, including one live special that won a top award.

Video of Vietnam’s first publicized gay wedding went viral online in 2010, and a few other ceremonies followed, capturing widespread public attention. The Justice Ministry now says a legal framework is necessary because the courts do not know how to handle disputes between same-sex couples living together. The new law could provide rights such as owning property, inheriting and adopting children.

“I think, as far as human rights are concerned, it’s time for us to look at the reality,” Justice Minister Ha Hung Cuong said Tuesday in an online chat broadcast on national TV and radio. “The number of homosexuals has mounted to hundreds of thousands. It’s not a small figure. They live together without registering marriage. They may own property. We, of course, have to handle these issues legally.”

Globally, 11 countries have legalized same-sex marriage since the Netherlands became the first to do so in 2001. Only a few U.S. states allow it, but President Barack Obama provided hope for many couples worldwide after announcing his support earlier this year.

The issue has remained largely off the table across Asia. In Thailand, many tourists see a vibrant gay, lesbian and transgender community, but it exists largely as part of the country’s lucrative entertainment industry, separated from politics and conservative Thai society.

Muslim-dominated nations such as Indonesia have strict laws against homosexuality. Sodomy can result in up to 20 years in jail and caning in Malaysia. But that hasn’t stopped some from continuing to fight for more rights and visibility.

In Singapore, more than 15,000 people—double last year’s turnout—recently held up pink lights in a park at night to support acceptance of the community in a modern city-state where gay sex remains illegal, even though the law is not enforced.

In Taiwan, a 2003 bill to recognize same-sex marriage failed to receive enough support to make it law, though a lesbian couple is expected to tie the knot in August at a Buddhist monastery.

Vietnam will also hold its first public gay pride parade Aug. 5 in Hanoi. The country is socially conservative, but the government restricts the kind of politicized religious movements that typically push back against same-sex marriage in other countries. Gay pride events also seem to pose little threat to Communist Party’s dominance.

The same-sex marriage proposal still has several hurdles before it could become law. The Justice Ministry will consider opinions from the public along with government agencies before submitting its draft proposal to the National Assembly next May on whether to recommend same-sex marriage or some other type of legal recognition with rights. Then, it must be approved by a majority of parliament.

“Some people told me if Vietnam could legalize it, it would be very good example for other counties to follow,” said Le Quang Binh, head of the nonprofit Institute for Studies of Society, Economy and Environment, which is consulting on the marriage law. “People think that talking about it is a big step forward already. … I hope it will lead to more openness or tolerance for gays and lesbians in Vietnam.”

As for Vietnamese partners Loan and Nguyen Thi Chi, who share a one-room apartment down a narrow alley in Hanoi, they say their love and commitment is real, regardless of whether a law exists to recognize them when they marry next month. But they hope the new proposal will ease stigma that lingers around same-sex couples.

Chi, 20, knows the pain of discrimination all too well. She recently dropped out of college after being publicly outed by a note taped to one of her classroom doors saying she was “diseased.” She was harassed and bullied for a year and a half on campus until finally deciding she’d had enough.

“Things must change,” she said. “Even though it was not a nice experience, more and more people are interested in knowing about the community. And the more people that know about it, the more people will have a different view on it.”

————

Associated Press writer Sean Yoong contributed to this report from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Follow Margie Mason at http://www.twitter.com/margiemasonap

Article source: http://www.denverpost.com/rawnews/ci_21185386/unlikely-vietnam-considers-same-sex-marriage

By
Rob Draper

PUBLISHED:

16:19 EST, 28 July 2012

|

UPDATED:

17:54 EST, 28 July 2012

In the sunshine of Birmingham, the world’s second-fastest man was fairly exploding down the track.

Shirt off, muscles pounding, Tyson Gay looked in the form to dominate as he rose from that sprinter’s starting crouch and, while powering away down the straight, managed to transform himself to full, upright running mode to hit his top speed. Time and time again the ritual was repeated as the American fine-tuned his starts, all focus now a week tonight and the 100 metres final.

Focused: Tyson Gay

In any ordinary year, anyone who had run 9.86sec this season and 9.69 would be odds-on to win the mostanticipated contest of any Olympic Games, the race to be the world’s fastest man. It’s just that 2012 happens to be an extraordinary year.

For across the city last week, the Jamaicans were conducting their own training but not in the open, relaxed manner of Gay.

Usain Bolt, the world’s fastest man and No 2 this year, Yohan Blake, No 1 this year and fourth fastest of all time, and Asafa Powell, third fastest of all time and No 4 this year, were conducting their sessions in private, prompting an array of questions.

What have they got hide? How fragile is Bolt’s hamstring? And what is the state of his relationship with Blake, now that his younger training partner has knocked him off top spot?

‘I didn’t know they were training secretly,’ said Gay, unfazed and unperturbed. He is the antithesis of the American sprinter, humble and softly spoken. ‘We’re only 10 days away from the Games and there’s not much you can hide because it’s about to come out.’

But while Gay’s training is open to analysis, with Bolt and Blake we have to guess. Jamaican journalists, who have the sources closest to them, say that they have been told Bolt is training like a ‘monster’, that the Bolt of Beijing and Berlin, where he smashed the world record at the 2008 Olympics and 2009 World Championships, is back. If so, why the need for secrecy?

And why the visit earlier this month to Hans Muller- Wohlfahrt, the renowned Munich doctor to the stars, if his hamstring strain is merely routine? Bolt was quoted as saying he was ’95 per cent fit’ on Friday. His agent, the assiduous Ricky Simms, quickly emailed news organisations to insist Bolt is ’100 per cent healthy’.

So begins the intrigue for what has always been the most-hyped race of any Olympic Games. At London 2012, though, the build-up to the final needs no embellishment. Put simply, the five fastest men of all time – Bolt, Gay, Powell, Blake and Justin Gatlin – will come together for what could be the finest sprint in history.

Never before has such a collection of well-matched sprinters been gathered at a Games. ‘Someone might run 9.85 and not even medal,’ says Mike McFarlane, fifth in the 1984 Olympic 100m final. The entire field could break 10 seconds and this in our capital city, where the climate is hardly conducive to sub- 10 second sprinting.

But amid that excitement will be another question, always lurking. Just who can we trust in a race that has been proliferated by some of the most notorious drug cheats?

Explosive: Tyson Gay, right, warms up alongside 100-meter relay runner Trell Kimmons

For among those five protagonists next Sunday will be Blake, who has a three-month ban to his name for a stimulant that informed judges regard as an honest mistake.

More worryingly, there will be Gatlin, who has served two drugs bans. Strictly speaking, his 9.77, which makes him the fifth-fastest man of all time, is invalid.

It has been scrubbed from the record books as it came after his second failed test, for testosterone, which led to a four-year ban.

Talk to Gay about Gatlin and you do not get the impression that he is thrilled that his United States teammate is back. ‘It is what it is,’ says Gay, who has participated in a US anti-doping programme called ‘Project Believe,’ for which he submitted voluntarily to extra testing. ‘He’s back now, running well and he’s tough. But at the end of the day he does have a dark cloud over his name.

‘It’s tough him being in opposition because he was running around the time I was running. They say he’d done his time and he can come back and he can run and everything’s cool, so I just have to roll with the punches.’

Roll with the punches is a term with which Gay is familiar of late. It is not just that before Bolt came high-stepping over the line in Beijing, Gay was the uncatchable man of world sprinting. It is that he has had to rebuild his body. In Beijing, a hamstring injury saw him exit at the semi-final stage. In Berlin, he was a distant second to Bolt.

By 2011 he required a hip operation at the same Colorado clinic that once rebuilt Alan Shearer’s knee. But now he looks more like the man who, driven to new heights by Bolt, ran 9.69 in 2009.

Injury doubts: Usain Bolt

‘Coach (Jon Drummond) thinks I’m about two, three workouts away from being perfect, so it’s going pretty well,’ says Gay. But also when Gay has run in the past, he has done so with the knowledge that the testing regime he has been subjected to in the US has been considerably more comprehensive than that of his Jamaican rivals.

‘There does currently exist a divide between the nations running the most-effective programmes,’ said US Anti-Doping Agency chief Travis Tygart in September last year. ‘They are in stark contrast to the quality of programmes in Spain, Jamaica, Russia. That’s troubling because our athletes will be on the world stage competing against those athletes.’

FASTEST FIVE TIMES IN HISTORY

9.58 Usain Bolt

The triple Olympic champion took 0.11sec off his own Beijing mark with victory at the 2009 World Championships in Berlin.

9.69 TySon Gay

Matched Bolt’s Beijing Olympic record when scorching home at the Shanghai Golden Grand Prix, in September 2009.

9.72 Asafa Powell

Powell clocked his best in Lausanne, Switzerland, in September 2008, to equal Bolt’s pre-Beijing world best.

9.75 Yohan Blake

The young pretender beat Bolt’s fastest time of 2012 to win the Jamaican Olympic trial.

9.77*Justin Gatlin

Broke Asafa Powell’s world record in May 2006 in Doha, Qatar – but his 9.766sec was later rounded up to only tie with Powell.

*subsequently erased from record books because of positive drugs test

Since those comments, anti-doping officials say that the Jamaican Anti- Doping Agency, non-existent in 2008, have continued to make strides. Equally, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), have authority to enter Jamaica and collect blood and urine samples. And the anti-doping authorities now have a much better test for synthetic human growth hormone, as the IAAF demonstrated last week by throwing out two Ukrainians and a Bulgarian for abusing the product after re-analysing samples from last year’s world championships. The days in which the system was ludicrously simple to beat are over. Professor Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the IOC Medical Commission and vice-chairman of World Anti-Doping Authority, insists that the race has got progressively cleaner.

‘The peak of doping in my view was the late Eighties,’ he says. ‘And since the creation of WADA in 1999, it is a different era.’ Gay insists the potential differences in scrutiny, even if they are in the past, do not enter his head. ‘Part of the procedure for every athlete is to get tested and some may get tested more than others,’ he says. ‘I can’t really think about who’s getting tested the most.’

He needs to eliminate negative thoughts, not least because he has a chance of winning a first Olympic medal. For since he was last in his prime, before his hip operation, things have changed on the sprint scene. In short, Bolt has got slower. Last year, he managed only 9.76 and he did not retain his world 100m title, being disqualified for a false start in Daegu. This year, he opened up with an extraordinary 10.03 in the Czech Republic, his slowest race since his breakthrough year of 2008. He improved to what would usually be described as a stunning 9.76 in Rome a week later. But this is Bolt and that is two-hundreths slower than the Bolt of Berlin. And at the Jamaican trials, he trailed in second to Blake in both the 100m and 200m, Blake running 9.75 to Bolt’s 9.8.

Blake is the 22-year-old world champion, the man who benefited from Bolt’s false start last year, though, perhaps, that is a harsh reading of events in Daegu. Why was Bolt so nervous, so keen to get away? The start is still the worst part of his race – unsurprising for a man who is 6ft 5in – and on the way to last year’s world championships final he had run only 9.88. His rivals in the final, Nesta Carter, also Jamaican, and Blake had 9.89 and 9.92 to their name respectively.

Maybe Bolt knows the days of standing up in the blocks and running down the opposition between 30m-60m are over. ‘When he won in Beijing he was half-ametre down after the start but his pick-up between 30m-60m was phenomenal,’ says McFarlane.

‘What people saw in Berlin was someone who had executed his start and got to 30m before everyone else. Now we’re back to 2008 and he’s not starting. So it looks as though it will be open in London.’

Only Carl Lewis has defied the four-year cycle of decline and retained an Olympic 100m title. Even then he crossed the line second in 1988 but was upgraded after the disqualification of Ben Johnson.

But London’s 100m final, a race that once seemed to be a formality, now looks a genuine contest. ‘This is the big show, says Gay. ‘It was only when I got here that I realised it’s here and I started to get a little nervous, because it’s the big show. I know it going to be huge.’ It should be. And it is London’s pleasure to play host.

• 
  Kicked out for a racist tweet: Greek triple jumper is banned…

• 
  The murders so brutal they shocked even South Africa: Couple…

• 
  Astonishing images of the moment apocalyptic ‘derecho’…

• 
  Chick-fil-A forced to deny using fake Facebook profiles to…

• 
  Horror as woman drops dead at counter of McDonald’s… and…

• 
  Greatest show on Earth begins! Eight billion eyes on Britain…

• 
  ‘I love you’: Shocking voicemails Jerry Sandusky left for…

• 
  Backlash after Australian newspaper describes Olympic…

• 
  ‘What you see is what you get’: U.S. beach volleyball team…

• 
  Great-grandson of ‘conman’ L Ron Hubbard claims Scientology…

• 
  ‘Devoid of charm, offensive and a wazzock’: Romney’s…

• 
  Olympic torch lights up London… and it’s absolutely…

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2180394/London-2012-Olympics-Tyson-Gay-quiet-American-ready-blow-Jamaican-dream-apart.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – A vigorous supporter of California’s same-sex marriage ban was named Friday as the next Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco.

The Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI selected the Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, the presiding bishop of Oakland, to replace Archbishop George Niederauer in October. Niederauer, 76, is retiring.

As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego four years ago, Cordileone, 56, was instrumental in devising an initiative to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California and then raising Catholic dollars to qualify it for the ballot.

He also was part of a statewide network of clergy that promoted the measure, known as Proposition 8. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban.

Since last year, Cordileone has been chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register last year, Cordileone said that same-sex marriage is “a very serious social experiment that will have dire consequences.” Opposing it is “not a matter of religion,” he said.

At a news conference at St. Mary’s Cathedral in San Francisco Friday, he said he thought the Roman Catholic Church had come a long way in addressing the issue of clergy sex abuse and reiterated his position on gay marriages.

“Marriage can only come about through the embrace of a man and a woman coming together,” he said. “I don’t see how that is discriminatory against anyone.”

Gay rights groups criticized the Pope’s choice of Cordileone to lead the San Francisco Archdiocese, which serves more than 400,000 Catholics in the city and neighboring Marin and San Mateo counties. As archbishop, he also will oversee the bishops in Honolulu, Las Vegas, Oakland, Reno, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Jose, Santa Rosa, and Stockton.

“While LGBT Catholics and their allies have worked relentlessly to create welcoming environments, the appointment of Bishop Cordileone sends a chilling message that, in the eyes of the hierarchy, same-sex relationships are not worthy of equal dignity and respect,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said.

A Field Poll released in February found that 51 percent of the Catholic respondents support same-sex marriages.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Article source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48364012

In the first graduating class at Milwaukee’s Alliance High School, the valedictorian – the year’s most distinguished student – scored a D+. “They were smart,” recalls Tina Owen, the school’s founder and lead teacher. “But a lot of them had not been going to school because they were being bullied, and a lot of them had problems at home. That year we had 15 kids. Five of them had lived with me at some point during the year, for one reason or another.”

Alliance is not a regular school. Its aim is to cater to a community that is at best ignored and, at worst, is actively denied its existence – lesbian and gay youth. Call it a gay school and you will be promptly corrected. There’s no entrance criteria on the grounds of sexual orientation or anything else. The school building, an unassuming brick block set back from a main road, doesn’t fly rainbow flags or emblazon its walls with posters of pink triangles. Owen guesses about half the students are LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender). “If you are gay, no big deal,” she says. “If you aren’t, no big deal.”

But the school, which is funded by the state of Wisconsin, is self-avowedly gay-friendly. “Here they can talk about a relationship or a break-up without worrying about how that’s going to be received,” explains Owen. The posts of Prom King and Prom Queen are open for anyone to run for, regardless of their gender. A mural at its entrance bears the words “knowledge, respect, peace”, and a sign saying Stonewall Inn. It’s a small school – just 165 students – where everybody knows each other. The corridors host more than the regular share of boys with shoulder-length hair or painted nails. All together it adds up to a critical mass of children who say they felt they didn’t fit in elsewhere – whether they are goths, punks or nerds – which makes being a non-conformist at Alliance the norm. The school’s art teacher affectionately described the school to Time magazine as “the island of misfit toys”.

At a time when sexual diversity has never been more accepted in the US, the emergence of such schools – there are a few around the country – seems paradoxical. “What does it say about our country that we have schools like this?” asks Ritch Savin-Williams, a professor of developmental psychology at Cornell university, and author of The New Gay Teenager. They have come under fire from social conservatives, religious groups and some in the gay community.

Owen admits it is not to everyone’s liking. One boy called home after his first few days there and said: “Dad, get me out of here, these kids are freaks.”

But to others it’s literally a lifesaver. Dylan Huegerich’s long hair and occasional use of makeup made him the subject of frequent taunts in school in the small town of Saukville where he grew up. “It hurt so bad,” he said. “I hated my life. I hated everything. When his mother complained to the school she was told he should cut his hair and try to act “more manly”. Every morning, she told Time, “I knew I was driving him back to this place where he was hurting. Oh, they beat you up? Here, go there again. My heart broke every time he got out of the car.”

She decided not to enroll him for eighth grade. “I felt like if I turned in those forms, I was giving him some kind of a sentence.” So he went to Alliance, a 90-minute commute away.

The school, founded in 2005, was modeled on Manhattan’s Harvey Milk High School, which was named after the late San Fransisco gay activist whose story was the basis for the award-winning film Milk, and which became fully accredited in 2002. It started as a high school (ages 14-18), expanded to include middle school-age children (11-14) as well, and is now about to revert to being just a high school again.

Michael Freytes, 17, who is straight, says he likes Alliance because he doesn’t feel judged. “When I was in middle school I was being bullied a lot. I tried to fit in but I couldn’t. But if there’s a problem like that at Alliance the other students don’t tolerate it and the teachers take care of it.” The students resolve conflict through what they call “restorative justice”, though a “justice circle”, governed by students, which Freytes says “tries to figure out the problem and then fix it without things getting out of control”.

The primary justification for the existence of schools such as Alliance is safety – an institutional response to the pervasive bullying experienced by LGBT youth and others in mainstream schools.

The problem seems severe. A 2009 survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) revealed that 9 out of 10 LGBT students said they had experienced harassment or bullying. Almost two-thirds claimed they felt unsafe in school, while one in five said they had been physically assaulted. A 2007 survey revealed that 39% reported physical assaults and, of those who told teachers or administrators about the bullying, only 29% said it resulted in effective intervention. The 2009 survey also found that the frequency with which LGBT students experienced more severe forms of bullying and harassment had held steady over the previous decade.

Last winter, 14-year-old Kenneth Weishuhn killed himself after he came out at his Iowa high school. Anonymous threats on his voicemail were followed by yelling and physical harassment that got so bad teachers had to stand guard in the hallways. Kenneth eventually hung himself in his parents’ garage.

Even when parents aren’t prepared to accept their children are gay, says Owen, they understand the need to put their child in a nurturing environment. “They want their kid to be safe. They want to know that their child is not going to be spat on or kicked just because of who they are.”

Attitudes towards homosexuality are changing radically in the US, even in midwestern states such as Wisconsin, and even if every time gay marriage has been put to the vote at a state level, it has failed. President Obama recently came out in favour of gay marriage, which is legal in six states and Washington DC, covering 12% of the country. According to Gallup, today almost two-thirds of people in the US believe lesbian and gay relationships should be legal, compared with fewer than half in 1977.

Today more than half (54%) believe homosexuality is morally acceptable, compared with 40% in 1977. And the people most likely to be comfortable with homosexuality as a fact of life that should enjoy equal rights and protection are the young.

Predictably, social conservatives are not enamoured with this trend or this educational response. The chairman of the Conservative party of New York State, Michael Long, said the establishment of the Harvey Milk School amounted to social engineering. “Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong … there’s no reason these children should be treated separately.”

Nonetheless, they are often treated differently, and Chad Weiden, who led efforts to set up a gay-friendly school in Chicago, says that part of the skill in teaching is making sometimes abstract issues accessible to students. “It’s all about making it relevant to kids. If you’re doing probability in math, you could illustrate it by looking at GLBT suicides or stop-and-frisk or unemployment. A good curriculum would also deal with issues of sexual orientation when covering things like evolution, biodiversity, anthropology, history and literature. That should be true of any school, not just one that considers itself gay-friendly.”

But behind these conservative attacks lie two broader motivations. The first, underpinned by the notion that homosexuality is wrong, is that any mention of homosexuality “normalises” gay identity, and might encourage impressionable young people to become gay who otherwise wouldn’t.

“What about that girl who is a virgin, who is being harassed by lesbians and guys to have sex, and yet you’re going to build a gay school?” a Chicago minister, Wilfredo de Jesus, asked the Chicago Journal. “It’s not fair.”

Such accusations, says Savin-Williams, are absurd. “There is absolutely no evidence that gay or straight kids can be created in that way, let alone converted. It’s a nonsense.”

Some would rather that gay youth were neither seen nor heard. A network of gay-straight alliance clubs have sprung up in schools around the US, to provide peer-group support for lesbian and gay students. But their emergence has often been challenged by school authorities and conservative parents, forcing students to the courts to defend their right to self-organise, as happened last year in West Bend, Wisconsin, just 45 minutes’ drive from Alliance.

The right calls efforts to recognise sexual diversity “pushing a gay agenda”. When Weiden was trying to set up his school, conservatives tried to provoke them into saying they would promote gay lifestyles. “They were just goading us. ‘Say it, say it, will you teach gay lifestyles.’ I could have said: ‘I’m gay, the kids are going to be gay, it’s going to be the biggest flaming school in the city.’ But we were just not going to say that.”

The second motivation, however, is steeped in a far more pervasive belief that gay teens and pre-teens are simply not in a position to fully understand and label their sexual orientation: that like being a goth, punk or nerd, it might just be a phase they were going through. This partly resides in the anxiety most parents have about their adolescent children’s burgeoning sexuality.

But it is also a function of associating an awareness of being gay with being sexually active, and holding gay identity to a different standard to heterosexuals. A 12-year-old boy expressing a furtive interest in girls or vice versa would provoke little concern. Indeed, the issue of his straightness wouldn’t even come up. A 12-year-old boy who finds himself attracted to other boys, however, would not have that luxury. Since sexual identity is fluid there is, of course, the possibility that preferences may change. But that is no less true for the straight boy than the gay one. And, the chances are that, whichever gender they are attracted to, both may well still be waiting for their first kiss.

“No one says to [a straight teen or pre-teen boy]: ‘Are you sure? You’re too young to know if you like girls. It’s probably just a phase,’” Eileen Ross, a director of the Outlet Program, a support service for gay youth in California told the New York Times. “But that’s what we say too often to gay youth. We deny them their feelings and truth in a way we would never do with a heterosexual young person.”

In previous generations young people would wait until college to come out. Now they feel sufficiently emboldened to come out in middle or high school – at an age and in a place characterised by teasing, bullying, sexual exploration and hormonal turbulence. “Kids are definitely coming out earlier, and middle school is definitely the worst time for bullying, whether you’re straight or gay,” says Savin-Williams. There are several summer camps around the country, that cater to transgender children as young as eight.

“We always knew middle school was a time when kids struggle with their identity,” one middle-school counsellor told the New York Times, confessing that her school was “totally unprepared” for openly gay students, “but it was easy to let anti-gay language slide because it’s so imbedded in middle-school culture, and because we didn’t have students who were out to us or their classmates. Now we do, so we’re playing catch up to try to keep them safe.”

But gay-friendly schools have also met resistance from members of the gay community who believe that such schools amount to segregation, simply sheltering gay youth from the realities of homophobia while letting mainstream schools off the hook.

Savin-Williams is skeptical about the purpose of gay-friendly schools. “Most of the kids who are at these schools are there not so much because they are gay, but because they are very gender atypical [not conforming to traditional stereotypes]. That’s not most gay kids. Where does it stop? Do you have a school for fat kids and annoying kids and all the others who just don’t fit in?”

In Chicago the combined opposition of religious, conservative and gay opposition scuppered plans to build a similar school.

“There was push back from the gay community,” says Weiden, who pioneered the effort. “The elders were against it. They thought it was segregation. ‘If you create this school,’ they said, ‘then you don’t make other schools accountable.’ But kids are scared now. They’re hurting now. Making the schools accountable will take years. I hope that in 10 years you wouldn’t need our school anymore. But they need it now.”

Owen agrees. “As much as it should be being addressed in other schools, the fact is that it isn’t,” she says. “And it’s not as though our students were unaware of what was out there. That’s why they’re here. They say: ‘We do the world everyday. We know what the world is like.’ And the reality is that the world outside high school is much more like this. It’s much more gay-friendly than high schools are.”

Gay youth and British schools

More than half of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people have experienced homophobic bullying at school in the UK, according to a survey published by Stonewall earlier this month. Almost all of the 1,600 young people questioned said homophobic name-calling is common, a finding backed up by a recent Ofsted report that found widespread use of the word “gay” as an insult.

Wes Streeting, Stonewall’s head of education, said: “We’ve found that homophobic bullying is lower in schools that explicitly state homophobic bullying is wrong and where incidents are dealt with swiftly and seriously. The best schools are those that go beyond tackling bullying by celebrating difference and addressing gay issues in a positive way across the curriculum.”

At one primary school that successfully countered bullying, Ofsted inspectors said pupils were comfortable about rejecting stereotypes – a six-year-old boy wore a tutu without comment from classmates, while a girl wrote a fairy story that ended with the marriage of two princesses. Children in Year Six learned about gay role models such as the actor Ian McKellen and the rugby player Gareth Thomas (pictured).

At another school where many pupils had anti-gay attitudes – children frequently used terms such as “batty man” and “queer” – the headteacher used the curriculum to explore gay topics; studying Alan Turing’s life in technology lessons and the Nazi persecution of homosexuals in history. The school brought in external role models including a black lesbian rapper and a gay Muslim group.

Ofsted found a “significant decrease” in bullying in the school, while staff and pupils who were lesbian or gay were able to be more open about their sexuality without fear of harassment. Jeevan Vasagar

Article source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/27/gay-friendly-school-alliance-milwaukee