Recently in Queer Issues Category

I recently wrote a post about my confusion regarding my sexuality.  More specifically, my confusion in how I could articulate myself to the people close to me so they would be assured that I was doing this whole "gay thing"...right.

And that got me thinking.  Because, when I get down to the core of it, as far as being lesbian, straight, bi- or pansexual, I'm essentially still on the fence.  And I think that confuses people.

We're all supposed to choose a side.  Whether it's a political party or a sexual orientation, a religion or a country, we are encouraged to choose a side and then stick with it.  If we deviate from it, we are hypocrites at worst, or just wishy-washy idiots at best.

I'm going to speak about women, because as a woman, that's the experience I know best.  I believe that bisexuals, unfortunately, are simply not taken seriously.  Oh, you're bisexual?  Well, that doesn't mean anything.  I mean, it's probably just because you're trying to trendy, or you're trying to be as sexy as possible to men, because everyone knows there is nothing a man finds sexier than a woman making out with another woman.  Bisexuality simply isn't appreciated as a fully fledged sexual orientation, like gay or lesbian.  It's more of a gimmick.

And that's the pressure I have felt, even from myself.  I have been accused of using an orientation that is not lesbian/straight as a "convenience;" meaning that if someone shows interest in me, it doesn't matter which gender they are because I'm simply keeping my options open.  So I can shower in the attention of all.  Isn't that another way of calling me a whore?  A superficial whore with self-esteem issues?

Anybody who is on the fence is never taken seriously.  Whether they don't have a firm political party to attach themselves to, no firm sexual orientation to belong to, or no religion to belong to (agnostics), they have no voice and thus no worth.  As someone who doesn't belong to any political party, still hasn't decided whether any sexual orientation will work, and a firm agnostic, sometimes I feel invisible.

What's wrong with not knowing?

**As a quick disclaimer, I'd like to stress that while I believe bisexuality and pansexuality are fully-fledged sexual orientations in their own right, I don't believe they are taken seriously as "real" orientations.  Bisexuality is often seen as trendy and shallow, and a lot of people don't even know what pansexuality is.

The title pretty much says it all.

I came out (as a lesbian) about six-ish months ago.  I came out to the two people I trust the most, my mom and my twin sister.  After the understandable "Q&A" segment, they were both very supportive.

Six months later and I don't know what the hell is going on.  Do I find women attractive?  Yes.  Am I attracted *to* them?  I HAVE NO IDEA.  And, I'm still just as attracted to men as I've always been, which is a lot!  I tried to be a lesbian.  I thought it was what I wanted.  My eyes would linger on the faces of cute men and cute women, but I only felt the "draw" toward men.  I find many women sexually attractive, but I'm not attracted *to* them.  Does that make any sense?  I thought that since I found women so sexually attractive, that must mean that I was a lesbian.  But the thought of actually having sex with a woman isn't very appealing to me.  Maybe it's because I haven't done it before?  I don't know.

My real question here is, does anyone have any idea what the hell is going on with me?  Has anyone else gone through this before?  I think of the labels, "Lesbian," "Gay," "Straight," and "Bisexual."  None of them feel right.  None of them seem to capture what *I* really am.  Am I overthinking this?  Is this even important?  Any and all advice/stories would be wonderful.

If it helps at all, I'm a woman, a feminist (woo!), 24 years old and in my second year at college.

In the past few days I've seen some pretty unfortunate things of facebook, many of which convince me that the online world is becoming the one of the best ports of call for misogynistic attacks.

Just last week I was astounded to find a member of the GLBTQ community which I am a part of at my University had joined a group called "Dress Your Age You 12 year-old Whore". It's the kind of group clueless high schoolers undoubtedly make but that apparently people my age think is acceptable to endorse.

My Friend,

I just wanted to let you know, because I realize it probably hasn’t occurred to you, that being engaged to a friend- a female friend- on facebook boils down to a heteronormative joke. I know you're not trying to malicious, so please don't be offended, but I want you to understand how much meaning your "joke" holds. We all know you’re not actually in a relationship with this girl, and would never be because you're straight. Becuase of that fact, your "engagement" is humorous because of the subliminal joke it represents. I know you didn't intend it, but your relationship status says, “ha ha how ridiculous that these two GIRLS could EVER be together in real life! How ridiculous and funny!”

And because that is the understood, subliminal, joke behind your “engagement,” participating in such a trend is heteronormative and contributes to an environment that makes queer people invisable. As your best friend and a lesbian, you’re hurting me. On this day, when gay marriage was defeated in yet another state, sham same-sex engagements are particularly cruel. I know you don’t mean to, and you probably don’t even realize why being “engaged” to your female friend is cute a vaguely funny, nevermind understand how heteronormative it is. It still hurts though.

Love, Barbara

Election day was today. It may not be a national one, but it was an important one. Especially for LGBT rights in Kalamazoo, MI.

The One Kalamazoo campaign for Ordinance 1856 is one that I feel passionate about. I volunteered for the campaign last week. The passing of the Ordinance would change the current anti-discrimination law to include LGBT. Allowing them to work and live in an environment that is non-discriminatory based upon sexuality. This also includes full access to restrooms for transgendered people (everyone for that matter).

Anyway, I spent my Friday afternoon calling people that previously pledged that they would vote in favor of the Ordinance to remind them that election day was on Tuesday. The calling was also to reiterate the fact that voting in this election, and in favor of Ordinance 1856, was important for the city of Kalamazoo. (Most progressives don't vote in every election, it is the conservatives that usually make their way to the polls.) Most of the conversations I had were good. One guy made the comment that he voted “the right way” and that we should “send the bigots back to Alabama.” (I'm not sure how I feel about that last part. It almost sounds as discriminatory as the opposition)

With any campaign that strives for equality, it has been met with serious, and in some cases ridiculous, opposition. Honestly, I never understood why anyone would vote against an anti-discrimination law. I believe that it is usually tied to something intangible, like religion and heterosexual privilege. I had a conversation with one gay man that said he would call up members of the opposition asking them what their reasons were for voting against Ordinance 1856. He called the Salvation Army, and they told him that by voting for the Ordinance they would no longer be able to provide help to the poor. How is that in any way connected to giving homosexuals, transgendered, and bisexuals the freedom to not be fired from their workplace or rejected for housing?

Regardless of the opposition's propaganda and late night prayer meetings, I am glad to report that Ordinance 1856 has passed in Kalamazoo with a strong lead of 2,000+ votes (more than the outstanding absentee ballots).

Bisexual.

I hate that word. I cringe when I say it, when I hear it, when someone uses it to confirm or deny my sexual identity. It's the equivalent to "mulatto." It's icky and outdated and strangely detached from feeling. Bi gives me the creeps.

Bi is everything uncertain, everything in-between, everything fence-straddling. Bi is being unable to make up your mind. Bi is not committing fully. Bi is being too afraid to step all the way out of that proverbial closet, or bi is following the latest pop culture trends, clamoring for attention at the bars or having one too many shots. Bi is a hanging chad, an unsigned contract, a half-answered email.

Never -- or, at the very least, rarely -- is a bi a legitimate, understood, accepted sexual identity.

I am bisexual. I've known this from the moment I was ever aware of having crushes, male or female. I mostly liked boys, and like any normal kindergartener, then middle schooler, teenager and college co-ed, I crushed, flirted, dated, fucked, loved, lusted, admired and fantasized all about... boys. Except, of course, when I'd do those things with girls, too.

At first this was my dirty little secret. It wasn't until late college when I dared even drop the tiniest hint that "bi" was a part of my make up. Liking and lusting women was only acceptable in the context of Jill Sobule, Girls Gone Wild, that classic Neve Campbell and Denise Richards movie (you know, that glorious pool scene) and later (for better or worse), Katy Perry and Lindsay and SamRon. That is, my split sexuality was okay in the context of trendy, pop culture, sassy role playing -- but that's where it ended, right? I didn't really like girls for real... except, um, I did.

In some ways, bisexual individuals are the last great sexual frontier. The vast majority of Americans can understand gay, even if they don't agree with it. We can spot it, identify it, rally after it, dedicate a cable network to it. We have the gay rights movement, gay pride parades, gay magazines, gay cruises, even a gay chamber of commerce. We have gay politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers. We bisexuals? We're stuck with Lindsay Lohan, Cinemax after midnight and a kitschy pop song every decade or so.

I just read this on a couple of science blogs: Dan Delong, an English teacher, at Southwestern High School (Carlinville, IL) was suspended for assigning "The Gay Animal Kingdom ", an article from the a science and culture publication "Seed Magazine" by Jonah Lehrer. The article talks about the research of Joan Roughgarden, biology professor at Stanford, who has documented over 450 examples of homosexual societies in the Animal Kingdom. As PZ Meyers, of Pharyngula puts it:

Apparently the thought that homosexuality might occur naturally, rather than being a purely human sin, does not sit well with certain people. I thought the most objectionable part of the article was Roughgarden's blithe panadaptationism ("Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection.")

Garfunkel and Oates is a band of two hilarious young women. This song is a response to when Pat Robertson said, "You've got somebody who is really weird and his sexual orientation is he likes to have sex with ducks. Is he protected under hate crimes?" when talking about evil gays having rights.

If you like this one, you might want to check out "This Party Just Took a Turn For the Douche." In a world where rape culture is glorified in a lot of rap songs, its nice to see it mocked and put in the category of "douche." (Some people might get offended by this one though, as it is joking about some serious things. I think its funny because it is pointing out how ridiculous and aggravating those things are, but I'm just warning you it might not be for everyone.)

The priests of the Church will start performing gay weddings next month. It's also encouraging to see that 70% of the board members supported the decision. One more reason Sweden is awesome!!

I know the Feministing readership is largely US-based, so I don't know how much you would know about Stephen Gately. He was a member of Boyzone, Ireland's first boyband, and he came out as gay in 1999. He died last week at age 33 and the circumstances aren't entirely clear yet, but the official story is that it was natural causes.

Jan Moir, a columnist for the Daily Mail's in no way patronizing and stupidly named "Femail" section has written an article questioning the reports that have been given which, while cruel and insensitive perhaps, is not unusual for the press. The kicker, however, is towards the end where she writes...

"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships. 

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael. 

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."

Um. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you actually, truly suggesting that he died BECAUSE he was married to another man? That is so far beyond even crazy person logic that I can't begin to get my head around it. I mean, of course, it is a scientific fact that heterosexual couples live forever and ever, and no man who married a woman has ever had any kind of troubled existence.

I suppose I should be used to this sort of shit from the Daily Mail by now, and yet they keep managing to surprise me.

Read the whole article here.

The fight for marriage equality is gearing up in two states this fall, Maine and New Jersey.

Maine's legislator and governor recently passed a law legalizing marriage equality is a legal right for all residents, regardless of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the anti-equality forces were able to place an initiative on the ballot that would reject this law. Maine's No on 1 campaign is fighting by raising money and seeking volunteers to talk to voters about why they should vote against this Question. If you live in Maine and want to volunteer, or even if you don't live there but can spare a donation, please click here. The election is Nov. 3, so we don't have much time.

New Jersey's situation is different. The state offers civil unions to GLBT couples, but as we all know that's not the same as marriage. So advocates are campaigning to have elected officials pass a marriage equality law this fall. If you live in New Jersey, please contact your representatives asking them to vote for marriage equality. Even if you don't, you can still help by donating to the campaign here.

If we all pull together, we can make marriage equality a reality!

Stephen Gately of the boy band "Boyzone" died tragically recently. Now the Daily Mail is trying to use the fact that he is gay to assume he was basically into all kinds of things that ultimately led to his demise.

This is so completely, and utterly homophobic it's quite astounding. For example "Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened."

I read Don't ask, don't tell: The way things 'ought' to be, or the way they 'are'? by Grant Martin, an editorial in the local online edition of the Kansas City Star and it blew me away. Mr. Martin tries to deconstruct good reasons for repealing DADT with the statement:

"Unfortunately for sexual minorities, the majority of big, burly humans that perform well in combat are heterosexual males.

Thus, if the ugly reality is that heterosexual males are physiologically predetermined to perform admirably with each other and detrimentally with others (women, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendereds, etc.), then we may be wasting our time debating what ought to be. Unless, of course, we are willing to accept a decrease in our combat effectiveness in exchange for an increase in the prevailing social morality of the day."

Seriously? Scare tactics and misinformation abound. Since when did heterosexual males have a lock on the ability to perform well and be part of a team or unit? The argument that if men can't sit around and talk about women all day they have nothing in common and can't work together is absurd! There are so many things wrong with this piece I just want to scream. Am I crazy in this? Your thoughts?

Cross-posted on Amplify

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a pathetic excuse about why Obama hasn't followed through on his promise to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.

The president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now, and uh lets push that one [reffering to dont ask dont tell] down the road a little bit.

Jon Stewart, one of my heroes, had a very simple message for Obama about this on The Daily Show this week:

All that stuff you've been putting on your plate? It's F***ing chow time, brother.

Amen to that.  While I support the president in many things that he does, he needs to get some things done.  Huge victories like health care for every american and adequate climate change legislation might be a long way off, but I had expected Obama to deliver on at least Don't Ask Don't tell by now.  Its not complicated-homophobic laws that prevent openly gay americans from serving in the military is wrong, and impractical. This bit from Jon Stewart is really awesome, and I agree totally.  Its chow time, Obama.  Knock some of those things off your plate, and end Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Please watch this:

(Originially posted on The New Gay)

On Tuesday, Zack created his Field Guide to DC Fags for all of you out-of-towners coming to DC for the National Equality March. Since we believe in equal opportunity here at The New Gay, I’ve created a field guide to D.C. lesbians for all of you ladies planning on marching (and socializing) this weekend.

Old-School Lesbians–You know the type of lesbians I’m talking about. The ones who are older, still live by some of the butch-femme rules, and can teach you more about lesbian history than you could imagine. You can usually find these women at Phase 1, playing pool and thinking about the good ole days.

Hipster Lesbians–Hipster lesbians in D.C. are pretty much the same as hipster lesbians everywhere. Skinny jeans, plaids and flannels, asymmetrical short haircuts. They’ve got messenger bags and ironic glasses. The main difference is that D.C. hipster lesbians are probably a little more genuine and self-aware than your average Brooklyn hipster. Though there’s definitely that faction that’s always threatening to book it to Brooklyn.

Organic/Vegan Lesbians–These lesbians buy all their food at the local farmer’s market every weekend, protest capitalism, write spoken-word poetry and are vegan. You can usually find them at the Takoma Park farmer’s market. They are also really into grey water, compost and bike riding. If you are a carnivorous person who doesn’t know much about environmentalism, your conversation topics may be limited.

Rugby Lesbians–Rugby lesbians play on one of the D.C. area’s three women’s rugby teams: the Maryland Stingers, the D.C. Furies and the NOVA Piranhas. There are also rugby lesbians from the area colleges–American, Georgetown and George Washington. Rugby lesbians tend to roam in packs, hitting up good beer specials. They also tend to only sleep with their teammates or other ruggers–so your best pick-up line option is probably something related to that time you got stuck in a monster ruck.

Non-Profit Lesbians–These lesbians work for non-profits and are really, really, into their work, which probably revolves around saving whales, the planet or cats. These lesbians are dedicated to most things political, and are generally lucky enough to have partner healthcare. They are good catches.

HRC Lesbians–Older lesbians that have the money to make big donations to HRC. Some of these lesbians will befriend you and your girlfriend at a semi-awkward, semi-empty HRC cocktail hour, promise to text you about that weekend’s WNBA game, and then never text you. These women are heartbreakers.

Power Lesbians– While power lesbians are everywhere, there’s no shortage in D.C. These women have some of the best jobs in the District, whether they are journalists, non-profit leaders, lobbyists, lawyers or working on the Hill. These ladies are fierce and probably will be in some sort of V.I.P. area at all times, even at the march.

The ‘Is She a Lesbian?’ Lesbian–It’s not that you don’t think this lesbian is gay. It’s just that you just don’t know that she’s gay until she casually mentions her girlfriend (or her ex-girlfriend) in conversation. Most of her friends are straight, and she’s not out on the scene that much. She’s probably pretty femme-y and works the usual 9 to 5, probably for a consulting firm.

These are just some of the lesbians I’ve noticed around the D.C. area. Other D.C. lezzies, make sure to chime in. And those of you in town for the march, feel free to post your finding in the comments as well.

In a great decision by the Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday, they voted to solidify the parental rights of a woman formerly in a same-sex relationship in which they had raised two children together.

The article is featured in the Montana Billings Gazette.

I was especially pleased with the comments made by Justice James Nelson asserting that discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation is indeed bigotry and unacceptable.

As a native Montanan from the conservative Billings area, I must admit I'm rarely proud of how this state handles queer issues, but I'm excited to see the appropriate decision was made here.

The National March for Equality is this Sunday. Get pumped!

One of my college friends is starting a nationwide You-Are-Loved Chalk Message project for college and high school campuses, after it was so successful at our alma mater (Drew University,  holla!).  It’s intended as a positive event for the GLBTQ community, but I think the message of acceptance and love for everyone speaks to the feminist community at large.  Please read this message from her and spread the word!

Today on a walk with my dog, I came across a sidewalk chalk drawing of two stick figures. One of them was yellow and smiling. The other one was blue with its eyes x-ed out. Above the first was written, "Mr. Fag, alive." Above the second was written, "smooshed." Both the writing and drawing style were obviously that of a young child, not a teenager.

Some days, you just want to crawl back into bed and snuggle with your dog, who cares not at all what race, gender, orientation, size, or age you are as long as you will scratch his ears and give him treats.

Have you heard that Dan Savage may be coming to HBO? Yes, Dan, “I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there…are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color,” Savage.
 
As an African American woman who spends a considerable amount of time studying sexual health policy and reading and writing about sexuality, I haven’t been able to pick up Savage’s column since he made that statement. It seems like it was just yesterday that I was a sophomore in college fawning over the City Paper newspaper stand waiting until it arrived so I could imminently flip to the back page for Savage Love. I even blew my shrinking discretionary income on The Commitment and can still recite passages from it by memory. But I can no longer deny the parts of me he spoke against to indulge the parts of me he speaks to.

I truthfully can’t say when or if I’ll ever be able to patronize any of his stuff ever again. While he’s among many who have denied the contemporary reality of racism and made callous race, sexuality comparisons, (I abandoned my support for The Advocate after that “Gay is the New Black” cover, too) his cut deep.  This is because now more than ever it’s apparent to me that sex and sexuality education work suffers in the absence of multiple analysis, race, class and gender for starters.

Despite Dan’s witticisms, he is sorely lacking on bringing a lens that isn’t just white and male to his gay marriage crusade and by extension his sexuality advocacy and education. While HBO is still in the “consideration” stage of bringing him on, it’s also worth noting that they have yet to materialize a series that truly speaks to the experiences of women of color — be it same-gender-loving or straight — in America. HBO is actually operating on a deficit considering their typecasting of the sexuality of women of color in series like “Hookers at the Point.” And I, for one, am still recovering from “The Wire’s” 5-season-long attack on Black women, particularly Black single mothers.  The prospects of programming that emphasizes race, class, gender and sexuality get dimmer and dimmer, now that a bigot like Dan Savage may be doing their sex-ed leg work.

In terms of gender, class and/or race-conscious suggestions for your own reference, Violet Blue is getting a lot of read-time from me these days. While I haven’t read enough of her stuff to vouch for her on the racial and class front, she does grapple with gender. For some really great intersectional work on sexuality, of course I gotta big up Feministing’s Samhita, Cathy Cohen and Patricia Hill Collins.  In a course I took by Cathy Cohen this summer, these names were also referred to me: Vicki Mayes, Tricia Rose, Gail Wyatt and Orlando Patterson. Do you know any of these scholars? Can you offer more names of folk that are doing sexual health advocacy, advice, media criticism or academic research that brings a combination of multiple lenses to bear on their work?

Of course there are millions of unnamed lenses. But I simply have started with the lenses that have been salient for me in my work.

This is my first post that I have been meaning to write for awhile, so it contains some late info.

As you may know there is a campaign called "ThinkB4YouSPeak." Which basically was created to discourge people (mainly middle school and high aged, since they use it the most. Believe.) from using the saying/slang "Thats so gay." When of their projects was replacing the stereotypes with other, much less harmful stereotypes (Like the stupid Jock, Stupid Cheerleader and Friendless gamer.) Even though these stereotypes are nothing close to homophobia, biphobia or transphobia, it might help some people think.

I first of the gamer campaign from a facebook fan page called "video games." The writer of the aritcle was upset, saying they were replacing one negative stereotype with another. (Note-The writer did say that it was wrong to use gay as a slur and that a lot of gamers have backwards views on both women and people who are GLBTQ) Apparently, that writer was not the only one to be upset over the gamer stereotype being used. It seems that a lot of gamers were upset over this. To which I reply, a huge-

What?!

Woooooo hooooooo!!!!!

"The nation's largest Lutheran denomination took openly gay clergy more fully into its fold Friday, as leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to lift a ban that prohibited sexually active gays and lesbians from serving as ministers.

Under the new policy, individual ELCA congregations will be allowed to hire homosexuals in committed relationships as clergy. Until now, gays and lesbians had to remain celibate to serve as clergy.

The change passed with the support of 68 percent of about 1,000 delegates at the ELCA's national assembly. It makes the group, with about 4.7 million members in the U.S., one of the largest U.S. Christian denominations yet to take a more gay-friendly stance."

The title is terrible but the message following it is a step in the right direction! Just thought we could all use some good news this monday morning!

New Jersey based anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage (NOM), held a Celebrate Marriage and Family Day in Rhode Island last week. NOM boasted that they were one of the largest financial contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in California. Their mission: to "protect" Rhode Island from allowing same sex unions of any kind. That's right, no recognition in the government or religious institutions. Gross. So basically you just want us to exist then...thanks.

Rhode Island queer activists proudly protested outside of NOM's event.

Representatives from NOM stated that the event was not meant to be political or religious, just celebration with multiple renewed vows. Ahem...

Yeah, that wasn't political or religious at all...

In a nut shell, she's saying that if the government allows same-sex unions, the human race is bound to end because of the lack of child production. Who fills her mind with these crazy ideas? Clearly, queer couples have alternative routes to creating a family. What would she say to orphaned children or those in the foster care system? "Oh sorry dear...we could have placed you in a warm home filled with unconditional love and parents able and willing to provide you with anything you'll ever need...but they were the same sex. Have fun in the (too often) corrupt child care system."

NOM says they want to protect family and love...but what kind of love are they showing? If anything, they are destroying the basic fundamental concept of love, and that is to end hate. Their "love" is centered on the idea of hatred and discrimination. I'm from New Jersey and I shutter to think that headquarters for NOM is located in Princeton. With a vote for equal marriage coming up soon in New Jersey, we need to be stronger, more devoted, and more organized than the hateful groups.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you're in the area, the Women's Center of Ramapo College will be hosting an equal marriage demonstration on Saturday, October 3rd from 12pm-3pm. It will consist of a letter writing station, phone bank, postcard station, as well as a large-scale symbolic wedding ceremony open to all!

And please don't forget about the National March for Marriage Equality on October 10th-11th in DC.

Well, he deserved an apology when he was alive.  But even now it would not be out of order.

For those not familiar with the name, Alan Turing was a British mathematician, logician, and the father of modern computer science.  He was closely involved in breaking the Nazi's "Enigma" cipher.  He developed the Turing test, to determine the quality of machine intelligence.

He was also gay, in a time when homosexuality was widely regarded as a curable mental illness -- and was also prosecutable as a crime.  He was outed, charged with "gross indecency" (the same thing Oscar Wilde was charged with), and given a choice of imprisonment or chemical castration.  He accepted the latter.  He lost his security clearances and could no longer work as a cryptanalytic consultant for Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.  His death, two years later, by cyanide poisoning, was ruled a suicide.

Now at the official site for Number 10 Downing Street, there is a petition (signable only by British citizens or residents) asking that the Prime Minister "apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing that led to his untimely death".

There is an article about the petition at the Manchester Evening News, with an online poll.

About a week ago, the results of an Australia wide ‘gay census’ were announced on a website called Same Same .  The survey was in response to the Australian Government’s decision not to collect data on queer people in the 2011 census, despite efforts from ACON (the largest GLBTIQ health organisation in the country) and others for queer people’s sexuality to be included, particularly for the purposes of gathering information about queer health, wealth and other factors.  Our government has decided, however, that they will accept information about same-sex couples who live together and who see themselves as married, so maybe that’s a start - but it still doesn’t solve the problem of all the queer people who are single, in polyamorous relationships, not living with a partner, etc.  This is obviously a rather huge issue on its own, and something that probably requires a whole other post to dissect (not to mention some of the issues I have with ACON and the way that women’s health is othered on their website).  Read a slightly longer analysis here.

But onto the survey. From the website:

To put the findings into context, here’s some information on the sample size used for the survey. There were 2154 respondents in total. The average age of Gay Census respondents is 31 years. 49% are aged between 25-39 years, with the others evenly split between under 25s and 40+. 70% of Census respondents are male 1.3% are transgender (equally divided between MTF and FTM), and the remaining 28% are female. Respondents are more urban than the general population – 82% live in capital cities, compared to 63.5% of the Australian population. Even amongst the younger age groups where 69% of the Australian population are urban, GLBT Australians are proportionally more likely to live in a city than straight Australians.
89% described themselves as gay or lesbian, 7% bisexual, 2% open minded or undecided and just under 1% straight. In the general population, less than 2% describe themselves as gay or lesbian.

Firstly - WOAH.  Only 2% of Australians describe themselves as gay or lesbian?  Really?  I did a small amount of research into this number, and I could only find very similar results, but it seems there was only one study done, and I’m not sure when.  I find this number very difficult to believe, and this is all the more reason for the government to put some questions in the census about it.  Maybe someone here has a more accurate figure?

Secondly, I can’t believe that they listed transgendered people that way, as if trans folk are a ‘third sex’.  Does it really take that much extra work to say that a certain percentage of men and a certain percentage of women were trans?  And maybe, if you’re feeling really generous, put in some options (or just ONE) for people who don’t fit into any of those definitions?

I haven't seen this on Feministing yet.  The American Psychology Association recently announced that so-called "reparative therapy" which aims to help gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation.  You can see the full NYT article here , but some highlights include:

"In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.  No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-to-4 vote. The association said some research suggested that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies ."

"Judith Glassgold, a psychologist in Highland Park, N.J., who led the panel, said she hoped the document could help calm the polarized debate between religious conservatives who believe in the possibility of changing sexual orientation and the many mental health professionals who reject that option.  'Both sides have to educate themselves better," Ms. Glassgold said. “The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian. Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality.'"

I find the dialogue between psychotherapy and faith very interesting, and although I'm thrilled that the APA has officially declared that gayness can't be fixed by therapy, I'm having mixed reactions to the article.  There is still a huge number of religious organizations that consider being gay a form of mental illness, or think that sexual orientation is a choice.  This is a big step in a good direction, but obviously more neds to be done.

What are Feministers thoughts on this?

I was born in 1987. I don't know a time when queer* women weren't part of our cultural and social landscape. While I was going through puberty, Ellen DeGeneres blissfully caressed Anne Heche's on red carpets and TATU played lesbians on MTV. During high school I relished episodes of The L Word whenever my fundamentalist mother wasn't home. I danced in dim-lit bedrooms to Scissor Sisters and Ani DiFranco with friends, hiding empty bottles in our purses. I watched But I'm a Cheerleader at least fifty times. Queer women my age don't face the cultural wasteland that women like Rachel Maddow faced. There are women like us on TV every day. But is this peri-mainstream visibility enough?

The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For by Alison Bechdel had a profound effect on me this past spring. I had (finally) officially come out of the closet and I was buzzing with an odd blend of fear and ecstacy when I found Bechdel. Her collection, published by Houghton Mifflin in 2008, is an iconic representation of the evolution of queer visibility in pop culture.

Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For (DTWF) began in 1983 and chronicles the lives, relationships, and politics of a diverse group of characters, most of them lesbians. DTWF was one of the earliest representations of lesbians in pop culture and has made an indelible mark on queer culture and is partially responsible for the evolution of queer women's cultural visibility.

People my age are part of the most GLBTQ-aware generation yet, but queer women seem to have become visible only as subjects of our social dialogue about sexuality, not active participants.

In an interview about The Essential DTWF, Bechdel muses about this.

Bryan Safi is an Infomania contributor who doesn't get much play on Feministing for some reason. He's at least as cool as Sarah Haskins! He has a bi-weekly segment on the show called That's Gay. Here's the latest episode, in which Bryan talks about the gay versions of some popular commercials.

I've noticed some of the gay symbols in the commercials Bryan talks about, like the guy wearing the Human Rights Campaign shirt and the guy wearing the rainbow shirt with his maybe-gay partner in the Progressive car insurance ad. When I first saw these commercials, I thought progress was being made. Not so much.

8,000 Australians participated in a giant rally for marriage equality this past Saturday after the Australian government failed to pass equal marriage legislation.  They instead voted to recognize same-sex couples as civil unions. 

Here is a video of the amazing turnout:

This video has fueled my excitement for the National March for Equality that will be held in Washington DC on October 10th and 11th.  

I hope these grassroot efforts will be enough to gain the full rights/federal protection we have been promised.  I feel as though the issue of marriage equality has almost dissappeared from the news recently due to all the media coverage of the economy: cash for clunkers, healthcare, the war.  

One story I did see recently was on Fox news.  A round table was discussing if people "should even care" about GLAAD's ratings of TV networks for the incusivity of Queer characters, as though it wasn't "real news."  What I found the most ironic about this disrespectful line of questioning is that as the story was airing, the scrolling news banner included the Tel Aviv shootings.  THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CARE.  Simply put, we need more positive queer visibility. Why? Because both institutionalized and personal hatred still exists, and far too often it leads to violence.

So many times I've heard people state that they simply "disagree" with the gay lifestyle but that they're "glad we live in a country where people have the right to choose."  Well, we don't choose to be queer, so what choices are they referring to exactly.  The fact of the matter is, the hateful choices/opinions of others have taken away the queer community's right to choose for themselves.  And the last time I checked, we are still people . 

FIGHT FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE! 

Choose love and I hope to see everyone in October.  

Cross posted at rcnjwc.blogspot.com

Hi all, this is my first post. I've been reading this site for almost a year now and I've noticed a lot of personal experiences get posted here on the community blog. I've never quite understood how someone can get mad enough to write a post about something.

Until now.

I just had a conversation with a really good friend of mine who was talking about his sister who is starting college in the fall. His father was apparently on the phone complaining to the university that his daughter's randomly selected roommate was a lesbian. This absolutely blew my mind. Apparently, my friend's father believes that his daughter will be molested by a lesbian roommate. Right. Because all homosexuals totally can't control themselves and are attracted to every single person of the same sex. Sure.

This just made me sooooo angry. I feel so bad for the other girl who is now put in the position that her new roommate who she has never met hates her because of something she can't control. On top of that, her new roommates father has called the university to make a big deal about it (and I can tell you, he is NOT being quiet about the reason WHY he doesn't want his daughter rooming with her). AND ON TOP OF THAT her new roommate's family is all telling THEIR friends about it. College is a difficult adjustment period to begin with, but to have this added on top of that... how humiliating.

My friend doesn't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to room with someone that makes you uncomfortable, and I get that, I really do. However, I see no need for the mass freakout that his father just went through. His sister could have simply requested a roommate change quietly without telling them it's because her roommate is a LESBIAN, oh heaven forbid *eyeroll.*

This just made me so mad. I argued as best I could with him saying that the girl has the same right as his sister to live there, but my friend is rather moderate-leaning-conservative, so I knew I wouldn't get very far. One comment that really stuck with me was when my friend mentioned that his sister would be stuck with a lesbian roommate instead of someone with similar interests. I guess I want to ask this question and see if anyone in the community has any answers: How do some people become so afraid of homosexuals? And furthermore: How is it that when you are a heterosexual you aren't labeled by your sexuality and can have "interests" but when you are homosexual, the extent of your identity becomes "gay" or "lesbian"?

I know this has probably all been discussed before, but I just got so angry and I couldn't think of anywhere else to vent.  Thanks for reading :-)

Originally posted at http://nyaf.blogspot.com

Reverend Eric Lee, leader of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has been a vocal supporter of marriage equality.  During the Prop 8 campaigns in California, he attended numerous No on 8 rallies while working especially close with the Courage Campaign.  

During an interview with the the New York Times, he reported being apart of the minority at a convention of the SCLC'sleaders even though the organization has a publically neutral stance on the issue.  

Now he is in danger of possibly losing his position.

Explaining that he was unable to come to Atlanta on such short notice, Mr. Lee then received two letters from the organization’s lawyer, Dexter M. Wimbish, threatening him with suspension or removal as president of the Los Angeles chapter if he did not come soon to explain himself.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11gay.html?_r=1

I think this is just sad, but I don't want this to become an issue of finger pointing.  We all know that after Prop 8 passed the media did a really good job of making it seem like the black vote was the main reason.  And while 70% of the black voting population did pass Prop 8, they don't even come close to representing the 52% of votes it took to pass the hateful legislation.  The article really doesn't do much to combat this misconception either.  

All of this just seems like dividing and conquering.  The media likes to pit one oppressed group against the other based on stereotypes and over-generalizations.  There is no one "enemy" to blame for the passing of Prop 8, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner the queer community and its allies can unite.  Queer reaches across lines of race, religion, ethnicity, ability, age, class, gender, and expression. We can only succeed when we begin to realize that queer rights, or for that matter the rights of all oppressed people, are civil rights.  They keep us divided because divided we fall.   

This quote comes from Reverend Lee...

"...any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that.”

Amen.

I work in the box office of a corporate movie theater during the summer to help pay for school, and I was unnaturally upset when this woman came out of Bruno (after sitting through the whole thing) and said really loudly, "That was terrible, that should have been rated X. Just terrible. Disgusting."

I just smiled my forced, customer service smile and apologized that she didn't like the film. As I watched her go, I thought to myself, "have you seen Borat? Because if you have, you have to be reacting to the homosexuality, and if you are, you are an awful, homophobic person who went into the movie intending to laugh at a homosexual and had the tables turned on you when you had to deal with Baron Cohen's satire, so you resent it."

Yet, maybe I'm being too judgmental. It seems to me that the advertising campaign for Bruno is much more mainstream than the Borat one was, and maybe this lady didn't know what she was getting into, maybe she didn't know that she was going to be confronted by sexuality that verged on grotesque in its absurdity (which Borat did have, to a lesser extent) and satire that exposed the blatant homophobia in our country. I have no way of knowing which actually bothered her? Am I a bad person for being glad this lady was ambushed by Baron Cohen, just like the people in the film? I guess I hope she will get past her knee-jerk reaction to Bruno and ask herself why she reacted the way she did. Maybe she'll actually investigate the films she sees before she comes to the theater. Maybe, just maybe, she'll realize that she is just like the fools in the film who will discover (or have discovered, as evidenced by the many lawsuits surrounding the film) the implications of their behavior, and the reality that heteronormativity is just as absurd as Baron Cohen's antics.

Opinions? Is the satire of Bruno helping or hurting the battle for equality? Is part of the battle just getting people into the theater, which the ad campaign has done very well?

This is in response to the comments on the article that 'taisa marie' posted about on the lesbian teens who were named "best couple" by their school.
http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/07/09/high-school-lesbians-named-best-couple/?icid=main|main|dl6|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemondrop.com%2F2009%2F07%2F09%2Fhigh-school-lesbians-named-best-couple%2F
(Note, the comments on the actual article, not the feministing post).

I like to try and take every homophobic and discriminatory statement that comes my way and make humor of it. It really is entertaining how many unbelievable statements people make to condemn homosexuality.

Not that these comments and actions never hurt me, they hurt me deeply and disappoint me so greatly. I use humor both to show how ridiculous these insults and condemnations (word?) are to everyone, and also as a defense against the pain that is inflicted by our still discriminatory world.

I apologize for the length of this!

Anyway, I encourage anyone reading this to take these comments and show the humor and irrelevancy of the statements. There are many triggers on the comments page be warned. But I was also pleased to see that there are also posts slamming the homophobes. The was nice.

One of the comments that struck me was this:

"it's a SIN!!!!!! THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT SAYS GAY, LESBIAN, OR ANYTHING SICK LIKE THAT. IT'S A CHOICE TO BE THAT WAY, UNLESS GOD GAVE YOU MORE OF ONE GENE THAN YOU SHOULD HAV'E HAD, THEN YOU CAN GET IT TAKEN CARE OF SURGICALLY."

Alright.

1) Why do people love caps lock so much?
2) Dispelling things with the words "gay, lesbian, or otherwise.." is going to make us dissappear? Aw damn..
3) Not a choice. I know thats not funny, but its important to point out. Even if it was a choice, I still would choose it!
4) The incoherency! God gave us more than one gene..? Huh? You just said its choice...now you say it could be if there is an extra gene..huh?! This person cannot even carry out a thought..
5) You can get genes removed surgically? Seriously? Alright! Im going to go get my short person gene removed so ill finally be tall. Yess!

It is so disappointing the so many people still share these views and hatred. Yet people are also standing up against such hate. Hopefully we will see great changes in the years to come.

When I first read the headline, "Lesbian teens named 'Best Couple'", I honestly expected the article to go on and on about how it created such an uproar or whatknot to have this in a high school yearbook but to my happy surprise, the article writer did no such thing. What was even more heartwarming was to see a prom picture of the teens and seeing not only were they accepted by their classmates for being lesbian, but also for being an interracial couple and not fitting the horrible 'size norm' of beauty. Uber kudos for them and espeacilly for their classmates. :)

The comments on the article (and links to other articles)... well, don't read if you don't feel like getting your blood pressure up.

Article Here

Really poignant essay in the Washington Post about "gay humor" in mainstream television and film. The author, Hank Stuever, points out "Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Will Ferrell and their interchangeable cohorts seem incapable of making a comedy without at least one I'm-not-gay-you -are jokes."   I will admit, while I recognize homophobic humor in film and television, I had never considered what a profoundly demeaning and anxiety-ladened moment it presents for gay members of the audience:

"Nothing quite matches the feeling of being the gay person in a movie theater full of straight people when the gay jokes come around. It can put a guy right back on the recess playground, where the bullies are smart and funny and the sissy (also smart, also funny, but only to the girls) is just trying to get through the day unscathed. Not all gay men feel this as acutely, but plenty have sat blithely in otherwise enjoyable movies and watched as audiences howl with disgust when the gay sex joke presents itself."

I thought this essay dovetails nicely with the Women and Humor post earlier this morning. It's a short but powerful essay. Check it out if you have a spare minute.

This week NPR showcased a story from its Radio Rookies program where Victoria Cruz told the story of her and her girlfriend being voted “Best Couple” at their South Bronx high school, though she is worried about coming out at home. NPR’s title, “For Some, Coming Out at School Easier Than Home,” struck a chord with me, because that has always been my experience.

While I didn’t grow up in the South Bronx, I grew up in the Deep South–New Orleans, LA. And, unlike Victoria, I never had the courage to be out in my small, all-girls, private high school. But my best friend did, and she and her girlfriend went to prom together and were met by complete acceptance by the other students and the school’s faculty.

When I finally came out to my classmates two years later, I was also greeted with a similar level of acceptance. I came out to my class after a night of drinking margaritas, showing up to the school’s most important event (the senior Nativity pageant) heinously drunk, and then going out to another bar. Though my coming out was definitely prompted by alcohol, coupled with the fact that I had decided to finally cut my hair off like a “real lesbian,” it was something that I had been ready to do for some time. The haircut, though, finally gave me the courage to do it, and that night as I announced in the middle of Fat Harry’s “Yeah, I’m gay, so what?” the computerized bar games that generally involved comparing pictures of naked men changed to comparing pictures of naked ladies, all for my sake.

My mother, however, has preferred to stay in a certain state of denial. And while you could make a strong argument that it’s just her fear of deviating from societal norms, I think it’s more than that. June 26th marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which changed the course of LGBT history forever. It’s easy to look back and think that Stonewall’s impact on our lives can only be seen in the fact that we’re no longer hiding out in bars, I think it’s far more pervasive. Stonewall started our movement; and without Stonewall, there’s a good chance parties like The New Gay 's own Homo/Sonic would have to be completely underground, with raid lights on the ceiling to let us know the police were on their way.

Because of Stonewall and the hundreds of activists and fighters that came afterward, young LGBT people have been able to surround themselves with peers that don’t sneer at them because of their sexual preference, but embrace them. In an age where Stonewall and the events of the early gay rights movement can get lost in our own fight for marriage equality, it’s important to look back and remember how much was won in terms of social acceptance, and to thank the older members of our queer community for giving us that. Everyone needs to remember and honor their history, and it’s especially important for members of the LGBT community right now. During a time when it can seem like progress is impossible, it’s important to be able to look back and see how far we’ve come.

It’s true that most people in my high school class had no idea what the Stonewall riots were; I didn’t either until I went to college. But just because you don’t know about an event doesn’t mean that the messages from it aren’t disseminated across a culture. And that’s evident today, where young people of every race, socio-economic class and culture are seemingly more likely to embrace the LGBT community than the generation before them.

Links: BBC and The Age

Laws dating back to the British Raj that banned gay sex have been overturned in a landmark judgment in India's capital.

The 150-year-old section 377 of India's penal code, introduced when the British ruled the subcontinent, described homosexual intercourse as "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and imposed a 10-year jail term for offenders.

The Delhi High Court yesterday declared the laws a violation of "fundamental rights" and unconstitutional.

The decision means consensual sex between those over the age of 18 will no longer be punishable, although the court ruled that section 377 should still apply to cases of non-consensual sex and pedophilia.

Aditya Bandyopadhyay, lawyer and gay rights activist: "We are elated. It's a path-breaking judgement. It's a historic judgement, it's India's Stonewall.

I think what now happens is that a lot of our fundamental rights and civic rights which were denied to us can now be reclaimed by us.

The government has so far been pandering to narrow parochial groups, religious groups but the court order shows that India is ruled by constitutional laws and not by vote-bank politics.

It's a fabulously written judgement, and it restores our faith in judiciary."

However, conservative Hindu and Muslim clerics are pushing for the ban to be retained. The court recommended that the Indian Government amend section 377 in accordance with its ruling. Indian Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily responded cautiously, saying he would study the judgment before commenting.

So, what does queer mean to you? Do you identify as queer?

It's a label that I identify with because of its fluidity and real lack of understanding is mainstream culture. When I tell people that I am queer and uncomfortable with the terms lesbian or bisexual I always have to clarify what that means. From older (self-identified) lesbians i get the "oh your generations..." but from younger (self-identified) queer folk its something that we have all learnt to define for ourselves. That's why I love the term.

Being queer to me, as opposed to bisexual or lesbian, means that I feel that my sexuality is fluid. Its something that could change and probably will change as it already has. I am not a bisexual because I have issues with the gender binary and have found myself extremely attracted to people who do no identify within that binary. I am not a lesbian, even though I am generally more attracted to women, because I do not want to exclude myself from the possibilty of falling in love with a man.

What do others think?

A few years ago I finally admitted to myself that I was attracted to women. My boyfriend at the time was very supportive, excited even, as he is also bi.  I came out to an ever growing circle of people until I thought I was utterly comfortable in my bisexuality.  It was fun.  My boyfriend and I would check out everyone together, and I bonded with a friend who also had just come out as bi.  But ultimately it did not have a huge impact on my life until my boyfriend broke up with me relatively recently.

I had sex with a woman for the first time a few weeks ago.  It was quite remarkable in that it was great sex, but unremarkable in that I didn't have a sense of a life changing experience, of having my lesbian cherry popped. This was much like my experience of getting my cherry popped in the more tradition sense, you know, by a penis.  Both times I thought, oh, well, there's another way to get off.

But a couple days, damn it, the personal had to go go political.  I've had a huge problem for a long time with the concept of virginity (Thanks for the book Jessica!).  A large part of my argument was: but when do lesbians loose their virginity?  The heart of this dilemma is that in our society the default meaning of sex is intercourse.  But, before, when I said sex, behind closed doors, between close friends, if I didn't specify oral, of course I meant intercourse.

All of these issues I've been debating with myself and others suddenly came literally came home.  To my bed specifically. Do I need to change my definition of sex to include oral sex with men?  If I don't, am I implying that sex with women is less real, like the rest of society?

Somehow, the actual act of having sex with a woman has shifted my perception of my identity.  I realize now that I hadn't fully relinquished my straight identity, and I am ashamed to admit, as a white, mid/upper class woman, I am sad to have lost the privilege.  Suddenly gay issues kick a much more personal place in the gut. It matters to my personal future what states have gay marriage.

Lesbian cherry popped after all? Maybe.

NorthEast Two-Spirit Society and Audre Lorde Project's Executive Director Forced from Manhattan Pride March

Outrageous, but not surprising, considering queer POC are literally calling out the NYPD every other week for police bruality/harassment.

RAR RAR RAR RARR! This is fun.

Seems my beloved representitive is at it again, I am sure you all remember her deplorable remarks about homosexuals and "the gay agenda" not too long ago?

I can't take it anymore! How did this woman even get voted in again?!?

What kills me the most is that this state wasn't ever predominately Christian! We were founded as a dumping ground for Native Americans, not to mention there were tribes already here long before Europeans even settled this far!

In recent years this state has tried it's best to reflect respect for the Native Americans, by the Gods this state's name is Algonquin! (I think, IDK it means red people in some native american langauge, maybe Muskogian?)

And don't even get me started on the "We are a Christian Nation" crap, Thomas Jefferson said it better in the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion....."

So yeah, I just had to get that off my chest, thanks.

And for all you other Oklahomians.. tell her what you think: sallykern@okhouse.gov

Read the snip of a recent Gene Simmons interview and then join me at the bottom to follow his logic. The interviewer asked, "Adam Lambert's performance with Kiss on 'American Idol' was amazing. But I'm a little bummed you've been talking smack about him..." Simmons responded:

I don't think I've been talking smack at all. In fact, if anything, I've been soft-peddling. He's enormously talented, best talent 'American Idol' has had, but I think he killed his career because now the conversation is not about his talent but about his sexual preference. He's done. You're forcing people to deal with issues they may not be interested in. Life is unfair, and the masses don't all live in L.A. They live in Wisconsin and Nebraska, and you're on crack if you think the same rules apply there. My advice is still the same, shut the f*** up, just sing and let people say whatever they want. But I do wish him the best because he's got all the talent in the world. If only the world was not homophobic, but it is. I would be the first one to vote for equal rights for gay women and men, and get the church and the state to stop telling everybody how to lead their lives, but do I think he's killed his career? Oh, in an instant. I hope I'm completely wrong. I hope he becomes the next Beatles and proves me wrong.

Gene Simmons is allowed to flaunt his blatant poly lifestyle for all the world to see. The world has accepted him and his disgusting tongue without making him stiffle all his sex talk. Then he tells Lambert to keep the whole gay part quiet?

Somehow it is OKAY for all those mid-westerners to hear about all the groupie action but one man admitting he's gay is a career killer? Why does Mr. Simmons believe he can flaunt his heteronormativity and push Adam Lambert back into the closet?

Gene probably says," don't take this the wrong way, I love gay people, I have a gay best friend."

A very good friend of mine died this week. He was a bright, funny sailor about 5 years away from retiring from the military and starting out life as himself - a gay man. I was honored that he came out to me, especially in light of the fact that I am also in the military - and if I'd told someone it could have had serious reprisals.

It wasn't apparent whether it was suicide or accidental, but it really doesn't matter either way as he fit the risk factors for suicide to a tee. Alcoholism, anxiety disorders, and having to keep secrets from everyone he knew every time he got transferred to a new duty station for fear of reprisal.

His family was terrible to him - and he was firmly brainwashed into believing he was going to hell by his religious mother. She often called him up to tell him about less-than-local churches where he could go for "help".

I guess my reason for posting is this-after I got over the shock of losing a good friend-I'm just angry. Really angry-mostly at his family, but also at the military and America in general.

(And I guess herein lies the root of my question...) Is it right to send a copy of "For the Bible Tells Me So" along with flowers to his mother? I can't imagine losing a child is easy, but what would his life have been like if his family had been supportive?

I don't know if I would ever do such a thing in real life, but right now all I want to do is scream and cry and beat his entire stupid family, and the military, and America over the head with something sharp until they GET it.

Sorry for the meandering post, I'm angry and sad and I welcome everyone's thoughts on the matter.

The first time I encountered this question was shortly after one of my first sexual experiences. My best friend asked me over a screwdriver while we sat in a booth at a rock club we frequented. I managed to hear her loud and clear over the blaring music and drunken hoots of men playing drinking games at the bar. That dreaded question, often asked by curious straight girls, excited and intrigued by the secrets of lesbian lovers.

At the time, I did not understand the implications of this question. As a headstrong - and slightly tipsy - seventeen year old, I figured she was simply coming on to me. I didn't recognise the pattern of "otherness" in the treatment of lesbianism and lesbian sex by ignorant heterosexuals, or the exoticization and spiritualisation that is sometimes placed on lesbian relationships. Some lesbians encourage this exoticisation, boasting that lesbian relationships have more emotional and spiritual depth than heterosexual relationships. This is ridiculous as it is sexist, heterophobic, and completely unfounded. This kind of thought perpetuates the irritating stereotypes of women as emotional creatures, and treats them as almost sacred, mythical, goddess-like beings.

One trip to furburger dance club on a Friday night to witness myself and the other drunken dykes in action, however, ought to debunk this myth for good.

I am a lesbian. I love women. While I, like many others in this world of trillions of people, enjoy sex. I did not "become" a lesbian because I have an erotic interest in women, rather, sex naturally developed from the chemistry I had with women. Good sex comes from mutual trust, respect, practice, understanding and an electric chemistry. If you have had this with someone, whether you are gay, bi, trans, queer or straight, then you know what it's like for me to have sex with a like-minded woman.

I think my friend, over our vodka spiked orange juice, was hoping for a response along the lines of, "soft, sensual, slow; spiritual, sublime, heavenly"*

And at the time, she was probably satisfied with my reaction. I told her that the sex I'd had with a woman was wonderful and magical and awesome. It was an honest and genuine answer, but what I didn't take into account was that my experience was not seen as just another sex story shared, but rather, it played into her fantasy of lesbian sex as exotic and mysterious.

But ask me now, "What is sex with a woman like?" and if I managed to resist rolling my eyes and walking off, I would be likely to say, "sometimes awkward, sometimes amazing, sometimes downright crappy, sometimes orgasmic;   just like sex has always been, and always will be, throughout the ages."

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this?

I have literally never been so angry in my life. My heart is pounding and I feel like I'm going to cry. And I don't get angry.

This is all because my father is watching a show on TV (I couldn't hear the name or the channel and I couldn't find it online either, sorry). The entirety of the show was dedicated to explaining the evils of homosexuality and how all homosexuals are ruining America. Everything they said was either 1) blatantly false, 2) just plain homophobic, or 3) crazy ridiculous. For example: because of anti-workplace discrimination laws all stores that sell Christian items will go out of business. Because they are now being forced to higher gay people, and since all gays are offended by the bible and other Christian things they would have to stop selling them. Logical, I know. Another good one: hate crime laws make it so all preachers who explain why homosexuality is sinful (*rolls eyes*) have to go to jail. The logic abounds. Just as an aside, they kept referring to "the homosexual agenda;" I've no idea what this is, so if any of you know please explain.

Just as a bit of a note of cheer, because the whole world seems to be going horribly awful right now, look at the New York Times Wedding announcements. They put same-sex marriages right in there.

Dr. Rebecca Marie Zeitlin and Teresa Ann Sakash were married Saturday in North Andover, Mass. Cindy Matchett, a Universal Brotherhood minister, officiated at the Stevens Estate at Osgood Hill, an old manor house.

There's also a gay male couple. I just mention this because, as chichi and rich as these people probably are (yes yes, I'm stereotyping-but a marriage announcement in the Times?), and as pretentious as ALL of these weddings seem to be (the old manor house), isn't it cool that it's just in there, looking the same as the other wedding announcements? I don't know if the marriage bill in New York has been fully passed, and whether or not the marriage is totally legal, but what the hell, it's recognized and celebrated the same way as "opposite marriages." At least in the Times.

I hope this is how it happens, in the end (even though I'd like it to be faster): an inexorable process where relationships are recognized without protracted court battles over semantics and traditional religious values because every state just starts recognizing them.

In this glorious month that sees pride celebrations everywhere, even small neighborhoods can show their pride and create community. Tomorrow, Bushwick, Brooklyn is having a pride event all it's own organized by GLOBE (Gays and Lesbians of Bushwick Empowered), of Make the Road New York. If you're a local, or just want to come out to Bushwick to show your pride and support, come to Bushwisk Pride! Here are the important details:

What? Fourth Annual Bushwick Pride and Solidarity March&BBQ
When? This Saturday, June 20th
Time? March at 2pm/ BBQ and Program at 4pm
Where? 301 Grove Street (Between Myrtle and Knickerbocker Aves)
Directions: Take the L or the M to Myrtle-Wycoff. Take the B52 to Myrtle-Wycoff.
Program: We will March and then we will have a BBQ and an Artistic Program put together by GLOBE members
We will have free childcare from 2pm-6pm and a Bus leaving from our Queens Office (92-10 Roosevelt Ave.) at 1pm and returning at 5pm

Why are we Marching?

Against Police Brutality
Against Hate Violence
In favor of transgender rights
In favor of Same-Sex Marriage
In favor of a Comprehensive Immigration Reform that explicitly includes and protects members from the LGBT community

For more information contact Karina Claudio at 917-676-2559, karina.claudio@maketheroad.org. Or check us out on myspace at: myspace/globebushwick

* Globe is a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning and queer people primarily from communities of color in Bushwick, Bed-Stuy, Brownsville and other parts of central and north Brooklyn. Our mission is to empower our communities through organizing and education. Our membership is intergenerational, ranging from age 14-50+. Globe is one of the few New York City groups founded by, led and constituted by low-income LGBTQ people of color organizing around public policy issues that have impact at the city-wide, state-wide and national level. Globe is a project of Make the Road New York.

Well, this is good news. Assuming it passes.

I notice this because I live in Delaware. It's nice to hear, and I know our hate crimes criminal laws include sexual orientation. But I kind of feel like the people discussing Obama's move on the front page-this is too little. Not too late, but too little. Why is it only  now that laws are written to tell employers and landlords that they have to treat gays and lesbians like humans? Like the rest of the world? Why did that take until 2009?

I wonder if I should be grateful, or if I should be saying, "well, of course we deserve this, damn it. It's nice you're doing it, but we deserve this earlier!" I know that this has been advancing slowly, state by state, and that's ok, maybe that's the way it has to go.

Why does it have to take so damn long? Purely rhetorical question, I guess.

Hello everyone.  I've been a long time reader of feministing but I've never taken the time to write a post, until now.  This video is what I would call an inspiration.  It made me so angry that I was inspired to create a community account just so I could share it with everyone.

I understand that there are more than a few ignorant people broadcasting for conservative media...but don't they have some obligation to report accurately.  Which societies have ended "up in the garbage heap of history" as a result of embracing homosexuailty?  Not only that, but what was once considered the "majority" in America is no longer.  Heterosexual, white, protestant males represent about thirty percent of our population. This number of course changes when we speak about the amount of people against queer rights.  I just wish people like Pat Robertson would stop pretending as though they are the end-all authority and a voice for "the majority of America."  Conservatives are not the majority.  Wake-up call...you don't speak for me, anyone I know personally, nor do you speak for most of America.  

Please stop spreading your hatred...oh, and do some research you  "journalist" you. 

Wednesday afternoon, President Obama will sign a memorandum authorizing health-care and other benefits for same-sex partners of Federal employees.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31396079/ns/politics-white_house/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html

Rachel's take:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31396563

Still, this is fairly good news in a rough news week.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/obama.same.sex.benefits/index.html

I'd write more, but I'm tired.

Are we happy, or is this a bone? Does it matter, as long as the rights are advancing, even if piece-meal?

I had a discussion recently with some (all queer) friends. We were discussing a coworker who consistently refers to her significant other as her "partner." Naturally, in a queer environment, most of us (falsely) assumed she was referring to a same-sex partner. 

It sparked a conversation about the effects of heterosexuals using the word "partner" to refer to their...well...their opposite-sex partner. With all of the debate about same-sex marriage and relationship recognition and whatnot, it seems like an interesting paradox about language. We as queers know that "civil unions" and "domestic partners" and "reciprocal beneficiaries" are NOT equivalent to spouses, to husbands and wives. Even when every single government right is the same (which is NOT the case and never will be, but hypothetically), there is still an inherent inferior status attached to any other word used for a partner other than husband or wife. It's what we queers strive for...the ability to get married and call our "significant others" the same thing all those heteros have the pleasure of calling their significant others. 

So, in a nutshell, the NAME matters.

Now, having spent our entire lives not being able to refers to our significant others as husbands or wives, we have monopolized the use of alternative terms, the most prominent of which is "partner." We use partner when we want to signify that our love interest is more than our boyfriend or girlfriend. Partner is, in a sense, similar to a spouse (sans the wonderful official recognition as such). Partner means we are serious. We are in love. We WOULD like to get married ... maybe.

It's not ideal, but hey, it's what we've got.

Now, when a straight person working in a mostly-queer environment says, "my partner," things get tricky. First of all, people will always assume you are queer when you work in the queer movement. Fact. That is how it is and that is how it will probably always be. You know this. 

Now, already armed with the knowledge that people will assume you are queer even though you're straight, you then talk about your significant other as your partner. NAIL IN THE COFFIN. We all KNOW you're gay now! You used our lowly, second-rate word for your baby!!

What's this? We find out later you're not queer. Your "partner" is the opposite sex?? You're straight? But...but...you said "partner!" PARTNER!

Some in our group felt like our hetero co-workers use of the word "partner" was a deliberate safety net or defense mechanism. Already knowing that people assume your queer, and knowing you will (may) have to eventually "come out" as straight, using "partner" delays the inevitable. However, some were also offended. They believed that when a hetero in a queer environment uses "partner," that person knows it will be assumed they mean "same-sex" partner. Some felt deceived. Others felt like this person was capitalizing off of our experience to get in with the cool (gay) kids.

No one mentioned that maybe this person was using "partner" consciously, perhaps as some form of conscientious objection to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Or maybe they use partner because it's more than a gf/bf thing but less than marriage. Or maybe they use partner because they damn well feel like it.

Either way, it was definitely an interesting thing and my inner commentary has been amusing and confusing me ever since.

Any thoughts??

Harvard University has just announced that they will endow a visiting professorship in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender studies, which they believe will be the first endowed, named chair in the subject at an American college.

This would at first seems like overwhelmingly great news.

Yesterday, I was told, by my grandmother, that "of course [I] want to get married!" The conversation had been on wedding showers, and my little sister, knowing how I feel about them, asked me if I did ever want to get married. My grandmother answered for me.

The truth is, I don't think I do. Of course I'm young, twenty, and might some day change my mind. But as of right now, I can't see myself in that kind of relationship.

And even if I wanted to, I can't. I'm a queer femme, and until marriage becomes legal in the state of New York between two women (the preferred gender of most of my romantic and sexual interests), whatever marriage might transpire wouldn't be recognized in the eyes of the law.

And this is a problem I have with the fight for gay marriage. It feels to me as if it continues to make marriage the norm. I am already considered an outsider for being queer. But now I feel like I'm an outsider for not trying to search for my "life partner," even at my age. I thought that this was a problem that I would get away from by being queer.

This is not to say that marriage rights would not be nice. But it seems that by pushing this cause to the forefront of the "movement," we are pushing marriage as something that legitimizes gay relationships. It's okay to be gay if you get married.

You hear this in the rhetoric: "it's all about love"; "love conquers all"; "you can't choose who you love." And while these things might (might) be true about marriage, these arguments seem to be tipping over into the argument about what it means to be gay/lesbian/bi/queer, etc. And I just want to say, that sometimes it's not about love. Sometimes it's about sex. Sometimes it's about attraction. Sometimes it's about questioning your attractions.

And occasionally you fall for someone and may want to commit to that person. But should that commitment be assumed to take the form of marriage? Is marriage about the benefits? Our rights should be recognized and we shouldn't be treated like second class citizens because we wish to wed someone of the same sex. But I suppose I'm just wondering why we're limiting ourselves.

I am originally from the Midwest but moved to New York City for a job about a year and a half ago. The rest of my family is still "back home" and over the past week I was there for a visit. 

During my stay, my brother and I visited a big box retailer that shall remain unnamed. While there, we were walking down the aisle and a guy was walking towards us and looked at my brother and I as though he knew us. As we got closer, we realized that we did not know him though he stopped and watched us pass. As we did so, he said to no one in particular "Yeah, there are some PDQs here, some Pretty Dumb Queers. They are all taking over. Stupid queers are everywhere."

Once far enough away, my brother and I looked at each other somewhat bewildered. Was that directed at us? If so, was it one of us in particular? The entire interaction was so odd, we kept discussing it. We analyzed our respective appearances--he was in dress pants and nice shirt, me in workout attire. His initial reaction was, "Well, that's what we get for going to >name of retailer< to get cheap ice cream." But as we discussed it more, I realized that my brother had a far more charitable attitude about it than I did. His sense was that someone who feels so threatened by a person who is different that they feel a need to say something so offensive in such an indirect manner, it is clear that the intention was to hurt someone, but it is also an act of thinly veiled fear. My brother pitied this guy and all of the potential relationships, opportunities and knowledge he would miss out on as a result of his rigidly narrow world view. 

*** Cross-Posted at FeminismFriday - The Blog ***

I hate that this is even a debatable issue. Gay marriage is a human rights issue, not a matter of personal opinion.

There are a number of quotes related to this cause that are becoming very well known like; “If you don’t agree with gay marriage, do not marry a gay person”. It gets the point across that these are human rights not straight people rights. In other words, it really doesn’t hurt people to have gay marriage exist, however, it certainly does when you deny people a right another group of people has access to. That is blatant discrimination!

The fact that you are religious does NOT give you the right to spread hate under the guise of freedom of speech. You are a bigot! Hate crimes and related comments should not be covered under the US constitution in any situation.

This post is a result of the Prop 8 decision being upheld by the California Supreme Court and because of Miss California’s response to Perez .

This is an interesting interview. I really can't decide where i stand. I understand that politician hypocrisy should be exposed but i also agree with Sherri Shepherd on that politicians shouldn't always vote according to their personal lives, after all they are there to represent their constituents, not their personal beliefs (and wether they are out or not should be their personal choice). . . anyways, i think we already had this conversation in Feministing, but i thought you guys might be interested in this interview.

So much for queer-related books being hard to find. Today I searched Amazon for "Ravi Shankar and Philip Glass." Result #5: "Tantric Sex For Women : A Guide For Lesbian, Bi, Hetero and Solo, Lovers ."

And I wasn't even looking for it. Thanks, Amazon!

New Jersey State Senator Paul Sarlo is on the fence about same-sex marriage. He is chair of the Senate Judiciary Commitee – where the marriage equality bill will be voted on this session.

He has posted a poll on his website.

The poll is located on the homepage about halfway down the page.

The National Organization for Marriage (anti-same-sex marriage group) has been telling all their members to vote against it.

It's a simple poll, you just need to enter your email address and answer one question: "Do you support same-sex marriage?"

This inspired this post. It's a four-clip post from Tyra Bank's talk show, and the issue is same-sex marriage. I apologize because I wouldn't know where to look for a transcript for those here who can't hear. I don't know what network/production company owns her show to track one down. :-( If someone could help with that, I'd be much appreciative!

I have some objections to how she did this. First, dividing the group into "Gay", "Straight" and "?" is really obnoxious and myopic. "?" is not a sexual orientation. Pansexuals, bisexuals and those who wish not to identity on either side of the sexual bianry should not be placed in a "?" section. Furthermore, there shouldn't be a divide at all, since we're all still people.

So same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. (And will be in Vermont and Maine by September 2009). We're really happy for those states, but also pissed off that our own state of New York hasn't followed suit yet.  That may be about to change, but we have some work to do first.

In April Governor David Patterson introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage (one that a majority of New York voters support ). The bill would amend the Domestic Relations Law to give same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into civil marriages, qualifying them for state rights on issues such as property ownership, inheritance, healthcare and insurance coverage. (Note: it specifically says "civil marriages", so all those bullshit lies about how priests could go to jail for not performing same sex weddings don't apply).

The bill has just passed through the New York State Assembly by a bipartisan vote of 89-52 . Yay! Getting it through the Senate might be a little trickier. (A similar bill passed in the Assembly in 2007 with a vote of 85-61, but couldn't pass in the Senate).

Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith has stated that he won't bring the bill to the floor of the Senate unless he' s sure it has sufficient votes to pass. As of now it still seems like the numbers come up short, so what can we do about that? Although Republican Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos opposes marriage equality, in April he stated that members of the Senate Republican Conference will be free to vote their consciences rather than pressuring the GOP to vote against the bill.

Recently, I was catching up on gadgetfreak84's youtube videos. Gadgetfreak is a gay man in a commited relationship. He and his partner make videos where users send in questions about being a gay couple, and they answer them honestly and without hesitation. He's also very adament about gay stereotypes in the media, and he has a series of videos on this topic which I thoroughly enjoy as well.

In one of his videos, he mentions that he feels negatively towards gay pride parades. This came as a bit of a surprise to me, until he explained his reasons why. There's a lot of logic in what he says, but I still can't decide where I stand. To paraphrase, his views are that homoaffectionate people ("homoaffectionate" is a word he coined as an alternative to "homosexual," as he feels that the latter draws unwanted attention to the person's sexuality) having an entire parade to themselves, where many of them go a little wild and often behave as if being gay is all about having sex and displaying it to the world, is effectively othering them. He believes it's sending the message that there's "normal" parades -- fun, family friendly, modest -- and then there's gay parades -- sexualized, raunchy, wild. He believes that it's harmful, because gay pride parades get more media attention than your average everyday gay couple, so the images that the public is seeing on TV and in newspapers is one of sex-crazed party animals, instead of what homoaffectionate people actually are -- that is, no different from heteroaffectionate people.

His partner is neutral on the matter and thinks that while he doesn't have a problem with other people attending and participating in gay pride parades, he himself has no interest in participating.

What are your opinions on this? I'm very interested to hear some viewpoints on the matter. Do you think it's helpful for gay people to show their pride and get attention in the mainstream media to show that yes, they exist and no, they're not going to be ashamed of it? Or do you think gay pride parades are othering them from "normal," non-gay themed parades?

Just watched this video from The Young Turks (who aren't by any means perfect but are my main means of getting a wide range of American political news from a liberal viewpoint) and it raises some interesting and solid points. However Cenk didn't bring up one point that I feel is pretty relevant. In this first clip, Sessions says,

"It depends on their personal ethics and legal skill and ability... [The interviewer asks if he would welcome the diversity that the USA hadn't previously seen] I don't think we should be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court."

I continue to be amazed at the things that people can get away with when it comes to Othering same sex marriage.

Little Britain star Matt Lucas and his partner Kevin McGee were "married" in a civil ceremony at the private member's club Home House in London.

Later, the "newlyweds" dressed as Aladdin and Prince Charming for their pantomime-themed wedding reception.

Actually, BBC, Matt Lucas had a wedding, where he married his partner.  No inverted commas; that's just simple fact.

Now, I don't mean to pick on Britney Spears (I really don't), but if we look at the reporting on her wedding, which was annulled, we can see that it was not written about in the same way by the BBC:

The man who married Britney Spears has spoken about their surprise marriage, which was annulled less than 55 hours after the pair tied the knot.

They tied the knot, everyone!

The BBC also did the same thing here and here.

P.S. I realise that these are not weddings in the religious sense, but civil partnership ceremonies.  My point is that civil partnership ceremonies between a man and a woman (eg Spears' wedding) are not written about the same way as same-sex ones.

P.P.S. It turns out that Lucas and McGee are no longer together, just in case you were wondering.

At 9AM on Tuesday April 28th, somewhere between 50-70 people came to the iconic Park Street Church across from Boston Common to attend an Exodus Ministries training. Attendees watched a video wherein 'former homosexuals' and 'former lesbians' spoke of the power of god to heal 'sexual brokenness' and restore heterosexual desires to the most fallen of souls. During the 'male homosexuality' portion of the training, 'former homosexual' Jeff Buchanan shared his experience of having turned from his homosexual past, as well as the causes of male homosexuality, which include resentment of male authority and lack of bonding with fathers. This had been going on for quite some time when Jason Lydon, pastor of the Community Church of Boston, whom the event organizers had foolishly invited, stood up and informed the attendees of their culpability in the suicides of two eleven year old boys in April 2009, both prompted by anti-gay bullying. As security moved to stop him from distributing 'JESUS WAS GAY' flyers, he continued, 'If Jesus Christ walked into this church today, he would overturn your tables because you have turned his house into a den of thieves!' As he was removed from the building, attendees' ears rang with the echo of, 'GOD LOVES QUEEEERS!' Attendees were very shaken indeed, with one calling for a prayer to refocus the event, which continued. After Buchanan, Melanie Spinks, a 'former lesbian,' took the lectern to address the essence of womanhood, the causes of 'female homosexuality,' and which profiles of women tend to struggle with same-sex attraction. Event-goers had just been informed that lesbians can be attractive when an attractive young woman stood, declared her rejection of Exodus Ministries and her affection for another young woman two tables away. The two ran to each other in an affectionate, snogular embrace, held hands and skipped out the door before security could reach them. Ever mischievous, the two ran around back outside the giant window of the conference room, bringing them into the Granary Burying Ground, final resting place of such patriarchs as Paul Revere, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, visiting place of hordes of schoolchildren. What better setting to engage in gratuitous homoerotic canoodling? It is not known to the authors what transpired in the conference room after this, as, to the best of their knowledge, all radical queers had excised themselves from the training at this point in the program. So what is Exodus Ministries? According to their website, 'Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.' Yes, they're awful, but perhaps not quite in the way an outsider might envision. Exodus ≠ Fred Phelps; these folks are incredibly polite and sweet, diverse and intergenerational, and they are convinced that they love all us rug munchers and peter puffers. In fact, they are 'former homosexuals' themselves. They reject a surprising number of harmful notions, though, as might be expected, they have their own set of harmful notions with which to replace them. They teach that attraction is involuntary and 'homosexuality meets legitimate emotional needs.' Naturally, however, they believe that same-sex pairings are 'illegitimate' and 'wrong' ways to meet these legitimate needs, and teach that all people can and should engage in none but the most godly, heteromonogamarital sexual relationships.

I just discovered this link for a website called Signing for Something, for Mormons to sign letters of resignation to their church.  Apparently Prop 8 was the last straw:

"Sign for Something is a diverse group of members and friends of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) united in their desire to speak their conscience on the matter of civil marriage. We each have our own views on this issue, but we stand united in the belief that each individual should have the civil right to marry the spouse of their choice and to have that union recognized by civil authorities. This runs contrary to the LDS church’s current policy, which asks its members to actively work toward making marriage between one man and one woman the only legal option. Our goal is to empower members of the LDS church in sharing their views and making political decisions for themselves."

Very interesting...

By the way, this is coming from a fellow queer Christian, so is not an attack on any Mormons or other people of faith!

I have come to love living in Iowa.  I suppose that before I took up the fight as a feminist, and prior to coming out of the closet and taking up the same-sex marriage fight, I hated it.  I pretty much still hate the weather, but that's besides the point.  This month has been a wonderful month, historic in Iowa! 

April second, I drugged myself up with my sleeping pills.  Not smart, I know.  But the Iowa Supreme Court was to rule the next morning, and I totally knew I wouldn't sleep.  I was terrified that we would loose, or that it would just be too close.  I mean, with the election of Barak Obama and such, we just can't have too much good news around here.  Obviously, I'm an optimist.

The ruling came out at the same time I had to go work, so I had an old friend text me.  At a stop light, I picked up my phone and it said "Welcome home.  Iowa is YOUR state now.  It was a unanimous decision."  My reaction?  The same whenever something big happens.  Nothing but a sigh of relief and a smile.  After fighting so long, it's hard to revel in the fact that you won.  (Here, anyway, there's still a lot of work to do!)  I went inside and hugged my best friend, also a lesbian, and got to deliver the news to someone that she could get married.  Througout the day I knew I helped in something life changing for many Iowans, potentially many people in the US.  (As Iowa goes, so does the nation!)  I was proud to be here. 

Monday was the first day that same-sex couples could apply for their marriage liscenses.  The atmosphere was...I cannot explain it.  There was so much excitement and bliss hanging in the air.  I was a little fearful, knowing the Westboro Baptist Church was planning to show (the God Hates Fags people) but they cancelled at the last second because our police officers would not provide them additional protection. 

I did not get to go to the courthouse to witness the events, but I have known Shelley and Melissa Keeton, the same-sex couple who was first to get married here, for a few years.  They have a beautiful son, and they are expecting a second.  (Which was the reason for the waiver being granted to bypass the waiting period.)  I did go to the Des Moines Social Club for a marriage day celebration, and watched the cake be cut.  I may not be partaking in this ruling at this time, however, you cannot help but just grin with all of these jubilant couples behind you!  These men and women, many of which have been together for a decade or more, all together celebrating equality being granted to same-sex couples in the state. 

Now, as I mentioned, I am not getting married any time soon.  But the really cool thing is that I never bothered to think about a wedding...I mean it wasn't going to happen anyway, so why think about it?  Ok, that's not the cool thing, but I actually do want a wedding, and now I can start dreaming it up.  Don't worry Jessica, my partner, whoever she will be, and I will hyphenate our names.  Or does it really count with lesbians?  Hmmm....at least now I can think about it! 

I'm planning up my next topic, in my love affair with Iowa equality...I hear we have signed a bill to put equal wages of women into the bill of rights and tripled the penalties to companies!  More research to be done before I really go into it.  :)

I'm bi and my Facebook lists both men and women in my "interested in" section. I'm also a member of bisexual and GLBT rights groups. It should come as no surprise that queer site ads show up on the site. But it's always lesbian, never bisexual. I get "Need a Gay Girlfriend?" and "Lesbian Dating" along with gay pride products. I never get bisexual dating ads or bi pride products. The SpeedDate app only allows you to see matches for one sex, not both.

But to be fair this may not be entirely Facebook's fault. Maybe no bisexual dating sites pay for ad space. I'm not sure if the SpeedDate app was developed by Facebook. If it wasn't then the blame lays on the developer.

Every single time same sex marriage is discussed in the media, the reporter will find a conservative who will say that we are redefining marriage away from its "historical" definition: one man and one woman. Here's a quote from an article on same-sex marriage becoming legal in Connecticut:

"The sad day was the state Supreme Court changing the thousands-of-years definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, across cultures, across times," said Carol Gignac, who wore a sticker on her lapel that read: "Religious Liberty: Our Freedom First."

This is what I'd like to say to Ms. Gignac and all her ilk:

Stop lying.

You're either willfully lying, which doesn't say much about your commitment to your religion, or you're woefully ignorant. Cultures around the world and across time have defined marriage differently and continue to do so.

Same-sex marriages existed in ancient Rome, medieval Europe, China, Japan, Africa and other places. Polygamy is mentioned in the Bible multiple times, and has been practiced for centuries in many tribal societies, Islamic countries, and lest you forget, the United States. In India, it is currently possible to be ritually married to an animal or a god. Native American tribes recognized various forms of marriage including polygamy and same-sex unions.

I saw this on CNN the other day and have been thinking about posting it. With Jay Smooth's blog on the front page (we keep overlapping... weird), I think it's impetus enough for me to post.

Now, on the Jay Smooth post, I did write that I do think Miss California is right to be able to express her opinion no matter who is asking and how it can be taken. While I have my reservations of the absolute sincerity of her comments, I do staunchly defend her right to express her opinion, even if she is against my interpretation of the Constitution's Equal Protection clause as well as the premise of Brown v Board ("Separate but equal is inherently inequal").

Roland Martin and I agree on that level. However, he starts getting into politics as his example as to why the "Left" shouldn't really be angry about what happened and why the pundits should just cool it down. I could not begin to disagree more on his standards, and it shows as a point of commentary in its own right, as well as an expression of political manuevering as its understood in American politics.

I just keep on finding epic FAIL all around me as I read the news, and the fact that two of them with similar themes found their way to me at about the same time, I couldn't resist wrapping them together for a community post.

The first is news capitalizing on the oh-so scandalous admission from male singer Marilyn that, long ago, he and Gavin Rossdale had a five-year affair. Assuming it's true (as corroborated by Boy George in his autobiography), I couldn't be happier. Yay for bi visibility!

Of course, I've braced myself for the current headlines that I know are coming (and have come: "Gavin Rossdale Gay- Crossdresser Alleges Romance With Gavin Rossdale") written by writers and approved by editors who apparently have never heard of the word "bisexual". (Reminds me of the Lindsay Lohan headlines- editors who love alliteration so much- because of course, "Lindsay Lohan lesbian" rolls off the tongue so much better than the accurate "Lindsay Lohan bisexual".)

(Cross posted at Pam's House Blend )

As a bisexual woman I'm constantly finding myself having to negotiate the flood of prejudices, stereotypes, and restrictive expectations of others.  It is difficult and overwhelming at times.  Which is one reason why I rarely go to AfterEllen.com honestly - because every time I go there, I find things that range from problematic to outright offensive.  I want to respond to the latest example. The title of the article is The Trouble with "Bisexual" and the author is "Senior Writer" Malinda Lo.  The most problematic part is :

When I say that I am a lesbian, my ex-boyfriend — my first love, my first adult relationship — is erased from the picture. Yet if I say that I am bisexual, I feel like a liar, because I have only ever been in a straight relationship once.

Bisexuals are not Cheetos.  We don't come with an expiration date.  It's not like we go bad if we are not used in a timely fashion.  I don't know where this idea came from, which I often see banded around in the lesbian and gay portions of our community, that if you haven't been actively dating both sexes concurrantly and very currently, we are not really bi.  

That idea ties directly into that pernicious myth that there are no real bisexuals.  See, there is this common wisdom that if you are a bisexual in an opposite sex relationship, you are straight.  If you are a bisexual in a same sex relationship, you are gay or lesbian.  Poof!  See you don't have to deal with bisexuals being there because you can so easily erase us when it is conveniant!  And worst of all, people like Malinda Lo will erase herself and her own experience because she has bought into this myth that she didn't score highly enough on the bi-detector quiz to truly deserve the label.  

I encountered a REALLY tricky situation that I'm sure happens all the time. But this is my first post here on feministing and I thought this would be a good story to tell.

My 12 year old cousin was having her birthday at six flags this weekend. It took around 2 hours to get there, since we live in San Diego, and got really hyped up to see all these huge rollercoasters coming closer. It was a really hot day, and as we got out I went to the back of the van to get a water. My cousin brought two of her friends from catholic school, her little brother, her parents, and two family friends. As we were packing our stuff in the back, I was sipping on my water when I glanced over to see my cousin and her friends huddled together snickering. I walked over and heard one saying "that's SO gross!!" I looked around and saw that the car next to us had a group of young men, probably 24 or younger. They were stretching and looking ready to have a fun day at the park, and two of the men embraced each other and shared a (in my opinion, very sweet) kiss. My other little cousin, her brother, who is around 7, was astounded. Suddenly, I heard their father say "

i originally wrote this as a piece when me and couple other people in chicago were trying to start our own femme mafia (http://www.myspace.com/femmemafia). i thought it would be useful for people to ponder here at feministing as well, since i have seen some femme-bashing in some of the comment threads.  i hope this can open up your minds to what a queer femme identity looks like.

on any given night, approximately 293584577432 hot queer women of all shapes and sizes, races, ethnicities, ages, religions, abilities venture into their local queer bars in search of a good flirt, fuck, or maybe even someone to fall in love with.  they wear dresses, lipstick, long hair, and heels.  they are outgoing and shy, the most dominant of tops and the most submissive of  bottoms.  they are funny, brilliant, and friendly.  one thing is for sure and that is that they are HOT.  and yet so many complain that no one approached them, that no one even saw them, and that everyone assumed they were straight.  because queer femmes are largely ignored by the 'mainstream' queer community.  the fact that they are even separate from the 'mainstream' just shows how fucked the whole thing is anyways.  because that means that they are the 'other' and that the 'mainstream' are the people who look stereotypically gay.

okay so i like to wear lacey bras and undies.  i live in dresses.  hot pink lipstick makes my lips look amazing.  and i wear eyeshadow.  i like to knit and i want to learn how to sew.  when i have time, baking and cooking are actually fun for me.  all this and i love women.  everything about them is beautiful to me.  they make me excited about life and love and sex.  i am femme and i am queer.  if people can't see both of those things as being complementary to each other then it shows nothing more than their FEAR of the gender that i have chosen for myself.

So I stumble across this new blog via The Frisky, and find that these "fucking hipsters" happen to look a lot like non-conventional representations of gender. AKA, these people look "gay" or andro.

Check out this pic.

Caption: "How is it that I'm the dude and you're the woman?"

Hateful? I think yes.  But this is possibly an overreaction.

For those of you who are celebrating Day of Silence today. Post here letting us know how its going/ what you plan to do tonight to break the silence.

Here is mine:

Personally, I am at school sitting on the computer during lunch. I have accidently talked four times today already. I have a handmade rainbow shirt on and rainbow shoelaces. i also am carrying some Human Rights Campaign balloons with me from class to class. I currently have no plans on how I will break the silence. So far no one has harassed me today which is wonderful.

So yeah, here are some questions to help you respond to this. You don't have to answer them, but I am personally curious.

1. Has anyone harassed you or tried to trick you into talking?

2. Are you wearing any Day of Silence related gear or gay/bi/trans pride clothing?

3. Did you accidently talk? If so how many times?

4. How do you plan to "break the silence"?

If you have no idea what I am talking about go here:

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

Happy Day of Silence everyone!

Over the Easter weekend, Amazon decided to derank GLBT adult and erotic fiction as well as straight erotica in addition to removing them from some searches. But get this: not all straight adult fiction with explicit sex scenes or suggestions of heterosexual relationships are included, while all but some YA (primarily lesbian) GLBT fiction without sex scenes at all were included in this deranking.

Why is this such a big deal? Aside from the policing, moralizing, narrow-mindedness of it (all queer fiction is bad, all erotica is bad), it is terrible for these companies and the writers from a business point of view. Rankings lists help give books exposure in searches and best seller lists. And we all need search engines to help get our book out there - in an incredibly large market, niche writers need all the help we can get! And I'm a part of this niche, not just in the writing side but in the purchasing side. This directly affects me.

And now Amazon has decided that adult content - or rather, what they decide is adult content - is not for virgin eyes. Who are they protecting? Children under thirteen wouldn't be shopping on Amazon anyway, and any child using their parents' credit card knows what adult fiction is.

In consideration of their customer base, they're excluding adult material from rankings and some searches? These books wouldn't be ranked so well and on best seller lists if they weren't being gobbled up by your customer base! And what kind of books have been pulled? In addition to Erastes's gay historical romance fiction, they pulled Brokeback Mountain, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Giovanni's Room, The Well of Loneliness ... classics! Some of which only have the suggestion of sex. But it's GAY SEX so it's obviously something we should hide away in the proverbial back room of Amazon.com. Autobiographies and biographies about being GLBT individuals, self-help books for GLBT individuals on coming out and parenting (including lesbian pregnancy guides and suicide prevention books for queer teens), nonfiction looks at polyamory and BDSM, criticism of religion on the basis of sexuality... these have been stripped of their rankings while intensely sexual self-help books for heterosexual couples are still ranked. They even stripped the ranking from a book on sex for people with disabilities! And what's really frustrating is that the Kindle version of some editions are still available - Amazon doesn't want to cut into its Kindle bottom line, but everyone else's livelihoods can go screw themselves.

Amazon is a business of helping other businesses by providing a forum for many different kinds of sales. But Amazon has decided to cut off the queer and erotica customer base entirely and make it harder for them to function as businesses themselves. They have decided to ignore the customer base that makes some books reach best seller status. They have decided to tell their customer base what is acceptable for them to be searching for by crippling erotica and GLBT fiction/nonfiction presses and writers. Het sex manuals, explicit adult fiction that isn't marketed as erotic, incredibly violent books ... that's fine. Gay romance, that's obviously evil.

As important as Amazon has been to my purchases of books, movies, and DVD sets, I will not purchase from this site (they get commissions) until this new policy has reverted to its inclusive rankings and lists. It is not up to Amazon to decide what is appropriate for us to read. It is not up to Amazon to decide what is appropriate. It is not up to Amazon to alienate an ever-growing niche market and basically discriminate.

If you would like to complain to Amazon, you can send a complaint here and sign this petition . Also, let everyone else know the censorship that is going on in such a big company.

CEO mail address:
Jeffrey Bezos
1200 12th Avenue South,
Seattle, Washington 98144-2734,
United States
Phone: 206-266-1000
Fax: 206-622-2405

Growing list of affected books

Google Bomb them with Amazon Rank . Hit them where it hurts - PR.

marriage equality seems such a luxury in the face of news like this: six gay men have been murdered in Iraq , in what seems a roar of religious violence.

Two gay men were killed in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, a local official said on Saturday, and police said they had found the bodies of four more after clerics urged a crackdown on a perceived spread of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is prohibited almost everywhere in the Middle East, but conditions have become especially dangerous for gays and lesbians in Iraq since the rise of religious militias after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein six years ago.

"...They were sexual deviants. Their tribes killed them to restore their family honor," a Sadr City official who declined to be named said.

The police source who declined to be named said the bodies of four gay men were unearthed in Sadr City on March 25, each bearing a sign reading "pervert" in Arabic on their chests.

As incredibly exciting as Friday was with the news of Iowa (and Vermont), this news should remind us that marriage is not the final frontier of the gay rights movement. This news should remind us that lives are still at risk, every single day. This news should remind us of the importance of hate crimes legislation and governmental attention at every level to violence against minorities. Last year, a California man used a "Yes on Prop 8" sign to beat a gay man. The irony of beating a gay person with a marriage campaign is stunning - we cannot let ourselves be distracted from the wars that are still being fought all over the world: the wars for the right to exist.

Decriminalizing homosexuality doesn't even begin to engage in this fight. It's the necessary and fundamental groundwork and the recognition that this war is already being waged, but it cannot be the only step made by the global community. More has to be done. These lives won't be the last we lose.

----
Let us also remember that these hate crimes don't only happen abroad. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports at least eleven separate incidents of hate crimes against the glbt community within the first three months of this year. These included death and poison threats against eleven Seattle gay bars, a gay woman beaten by two men in Minneapolis, two gay men who were assaulted with glass bottles and box cutters in New York, a gay man murdered in Pennsylvania, and two gay men who were beaten unconscious in Oregon. These are only the ones that have been reported. Actual numbers of hate crimes committed against any minority are unknown and underreported.

Here's a nice little distraction from my unequivocal hatred of the Final Four (more like Final Snore):

Iowa now becomes the third US state to allow same-sex marriages after Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Iowa is now the first Midwestern state to legalize same-sex marriage. As a Michigander, let me be the first to say, "Woo!" And also, "Hoo!"

Holy moly, who would have ever thought we'd see the day when the U.S is one of the first 67 nations to sign a UN statement on human rights issues and not one of the last? Even better, the statement is one that condemns violence, harassment, exclusion stigmatization and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  So you mean prejudices based on gender identity and sexual orientation are human rights violations that should be  protected against by international human rights law? Um... awesome.

Check the full thing in all its written glory here.

The statement has been controversial, Bush wasn't a huge fan of it, either was the Vatican or Uganda. It even has an opposing statement with 60 signatures drawn up by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which proclaims that while human rights are good for society, they aren't meant to "protect the rights of certain persons" (cough. gays. cough).

But Obama endorsed it! Hooray, time to whip out our gay happy dance!! The next question is what does this mean for LGBT rights in America? Will prop 8 suddenly go down in flames?  Only time will tell, the statement is non-binding, which means it will be up to the international community and the Obama administration to take legislative action to provide the rights declared within.

Here's the story so far. The Vermont State Senate passed S.115, a bill that starts the process of legalizing gay marriage in VT. (wooo!) The next step is to get it through the House, which is expected. However, VT Governor, Jim Douglas released a statement saying that he plans on vetoing this bill when it reaches his desk. So please, fellow Feministing-ers; DON'T LET HIM!!!

If you don't live in Vermont, email Gov. Douglas and let him know that Vermont needs to set an example for your state! If you do live in Vermont, (email him too of course!) but also look up your state representatives and thank them for passing the bill so far and encourage them to convince Douglas not to veto this crucial bill. Also, for everyone that can get there; in Montpelier on Friday there is an open house at the State House from 9:00am to 9:30am. The opposition is really picking up their game with more flyers and more volunteers so we really need all the help we can get!

So please, DO SOMETHING!!

Hello Feministers! I'm passing this on as a favor to my friend Kyle and as a move toward queer visibility. She's a theatre major at a small midwestern college, and she's having trouble finding lesbians to interview for her senior studio project. Kyle's been awesome on campus and has helped produce Vagina Monologues and do other good stuff that a small school needs more of. She writes:

My senior studio project is about lesbians and coming out and the experiences they have in social and professional settings (like if being a lesbian has hindered these at all) and then turn that whole thing into a show, kind of like Vagina Monologues.

I have been getting no help from PRISM [campus GLBTQS alliance group] or the community. I'm getting a little frazzled by this, since I'm supposed to have this all done by like late April. So, if I could talk to you that would really just save my life!

As a recent college grad, I and the few friends I've recruited represent a pretty limited demographic, so I thought Feministing was a good way to spread the word and help her present a fuller picture. If you or anyone you know is interested in helping with Kyle's project, please email me at "bethjblogs {at} gmail {dot} com" and I'll get you in touch with her. Thanks in advance!

Thanks in advance!

A 17-year-old girl is suing her school for not allowing her to wear a tux to the prom. She's a lesbian and felt that wearing a dress promoted a sexual identity that she does not express.

I am disgusted how a school can be this overtly sexist and homophobic. How would wearing a tux ruin anyone else's prom experience? It can't. This is all based in one thing, and it's not right at all.

P.S. Do not read the comments on Indy Star unless you feel like poking your eyes out with a sharp stick.

Jennifer Beals speaks at Women's Event 11

Ilene Chaiken speaks at Women's Event 11

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,"
"The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships." - Elton John

Elton John, like the majority of the British population, holds that Civil Partnerships are equal to Marriage. For John, the LGBT community and it's allies will only alienate the general public by pushing for acceptance into the age old institution of Marriage. And why would they want to, when they have exactly the same legal rights within Civil Partnerships as heterosexual Married couples?

There are, however, a number of reasons why Civil Partnerships are not equal to Marriage.

Emotional, Historical and Cultural reasons ;

The institution of Marriage has existed for thousands of years, while Civil Partnerships are relatively new, and were designed for gay people (though heterosexuals have the option of entering into a Civil Partnership). Greta Christine wrote a piece on the issue last year, saying;

"There are emotional reasons (why Civil Partnerships are not equal to marriage) -- marriage is an institution/ritual/relatio nship that has existed for thousands of years, one that has tremendous resonance in our culture in a way that civil unions simply don't. And there are moral reasons -- as history has born out, separate but equal is pretty much by definition not equal."

As well as its cultural and historical significance, "Marriage" is a term that is universally accepted and acknowledged, while "Civil Partnerships" are not nearly as widely recognised, and are virtually unheard of outside of Europe and North America. There is also the emotional weight on Religious gay people, who feel that Marriage is the only way their relationship will be sanctified before God and the church.

Same, but different

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who once argued that Civil Partnerships were a fair alternative to Marriage, gave a speech on the 3rd of November, 2008, in which he announced that he had "searched his soul" for the right thing to do when faced with a resolution in support of gay marriage that he could either sign or veto:

"As I reflected on the choices I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage -- than anyone else -- simply because of their sexual orientation...Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have changed. The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something I can support."

Civil Partnerships are not equal to marriage precisely because gays do not have the option of getting married. Giving gays the same legal rights but excluding them from the institution of marriage is not only undermining to gay relationships, it is insulting; after hundreds of years of persecution and periods of virtual invisibility, our government now recognises gay couples as responsible, consenting adults. As such, it makes no sense to bar their inclusion into the institution of marriage, and instead offer a second-class institution called a Civil Partnership.

I have debated this issue over and over, and I come up against some resistance ; should I not be celebrating what we have here in the U.K., instead of arguing over terminology? For me, however, words hold a lot of weight, and the philosophical as well as the societal and cultural implications of defining life-long gay commitments in a separate category from life-long heterosexual commitments is profoundly damaging. Unlike Elton John, I cannot accept Civil Partnerships simply because the word 'marriage' "puts people off." I cannot support an institution that is, by its very essence "separate but equal", which, as Christine so aptly states, is "pretty much by definition not equal".

Via The Consumerist: "Teresa says that she was harassed by other players and later suspended from XBOX Live because she identified herself as a lesbian in her profile. When she appealed to Microsoft, she says they told her that other gamers found her sexual orientation 'offensive.'"

From her e-mail to The Consumerist: "I was harassed by several players, 'chased' to different maps/games to get away from their harassment. They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."

This has happened before to people who have "gay" in their user name. Here's one of those stories.

Three cheers for gaming homophobes who can't even let people play their games in peace if they dare to identify as something other than straight... and three cheers for microsoft who then suspended those offensive bad-example-to-our-children lesbian and gay folks ... SIKE. *sigh*

I'm so mad right now. I have a slide show on biphobia up on YouTube. I say it was the first biphobia video on YouTube because when I first posted it there were no related videos. Over the past few days I got three comments from some biphobic dumbass. I didn't block him right away hoping there would be a response but his second comment was just a copy and paste of his first one and the third was just an idiotic chant. I would like to share his comments.

Bisexuals are maintaining hetero-privilege and collaborating with the homophobes while simultaneously enjoying the gay lifestyle. Female bisexuals are attention seeking heterosexuals, while male ones are just self-denying homosexuals too afraid to fully acknowledge their true orientation. Bisexuals are actually closeted gay people who wish to appear heterosexual. Bisexuals want to undermine the GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT. BI IS A LIE.....BEWARE OF THEIR VILE, HOMOPHOBIC AGENDA!!!!

There isn't a whole lot I can say about this. So I just thought I would share that the Westboro Baptist Church has announced plans to protest outside of memorial services for the some of the victims of the Continental Flight 3407 crash in Buffalo.

Because apparently the crash was caused by God punishing us for being nice to gay people. Not, you know, ice build-up or irresponsible use of autopilot or any of the other speculated causes. Those trained investigators are just kidding themselves.

One of the funerals they intend to picket is that of human rights activist Alison Des Forges.

Really, what can I add? It pretty much speaks for itself.

Thoughts and rant, so don't expect organization in this post.

I hate this kind of shit. First and foremost, it drives nuts when homophobic men use the medium of Musical to instate their homophobic agendas, turning the theaters history of being gay-friendly, gay-supportive, and gay-active on its head.

Second, is this really the best these two can figure out in the way of the tricky and often exploitative strict relationship statuses known as "platonic" and "sexual," wherein the blurring of any lines between the two constitutes an annoying and horrifying aberation? For example, it is impossible for the makers of this video to conceive of a situation wherein a man can spend time with both his female sexual companion and his male platonic (?) companion without the implication that everything the female does makes her an evil villain encroaching upon the property of that imaginary world called guyland. Also, I don't think its too far-fetched that someone would get upset with their companion for spending all day playing videogames and not allowing her access to the game. Would this vid have been more interesting if she was just sitting between the two twiddling her thumbs? Maybe wearing something more provocative? And what is up with the relationship between the two men? To be crying from the multiple times they decided to act upon their sexual attraction to one another?

This "Bros before Hos" mentality appears to work fine and dandy when women are degraded to status of objects and as excess, i.e. when they're disposible, and men get to revel in eachother, honoring one another as gods. However, I think the issue this video raises is not "bros before hos" but "what if your bro is your ho?" Then the system kinda implodes.

I'm a college freshman, and for spring break, I am attending Powershift 2009, a conference for youth leaders and young activists for climate change. I filled out the online form to register, and saw something that literally made me dance around the room.

When the form asked for "Gender" the choices were (get this):

-Male

-Female

-Self-Identify

WOW! I've never seen that last option on a form before! Of course, we must remember that this is a progressive organization by its very name and definition, but it's certainly progress!

Kind of reminds you how although we've come a long way...we've got a ways to go.

So this week at my high school, we filled out the annual Matchmaker surveys. My school does this every year near Valentine's Day. These surveys annoy me insanely not only because they waste a good chunk of valuable time, but they ooze gender conformity.
The first question asks if one is female or male so, obviously when you go to receive the results all girls are matched with boys and boys are only matched with girls. This survey completely excludes GLBT students. I'm surprised that no one's seemed to notice this in all the years it's been going on.

I know this is supposed to be some silly,'fun' high school thing so maybe I'm making it too big of a deal?

The openly gay Rev. Gene Robinson from New Hampshire said the first prayer of the day yesterday- but HBO, who had exclusive rights to the inauguration didn't air it; neither did NPR.  As of late yesterday, the New York Times or the Washington Post didn't cover it.  If folks know their Gay History, this has happened again and again.  Silencing and censoring speeches, political action, and yes, prayers.  The words are powerful, to a "god of our many understandings" and at one point he asks:

Bless us with anger-at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people...

Amen.  Full transcript can be found here, at the Hartford Courant. 

This article from The Seattle Times claims that "being gay is losing its stigma [and] having an abortion is being more deeply stigmatized."

"To the degree that the gay-rights movement has focused on marriage, it's seen as intrinsically conservative, even pro-family. On the other hand, an abstract set of abortion rights is framed as an individual choice."

This article infuriates me, but not for the reasons you might think. I'm okay with the fact that overturning DADT might take time. Ending the war and fixing the economy have to come first, however it's done.

What I have a serious problem with, are all the inaccuracies in this article. Tip to Roberts and Andrews--news reporting requires basic research.

Not even the most basic assumptions of this article are correct. They say, "Former President Bill Clinton tried to overturn [DADT] when he took office in 1993, but he was strenuously opposed by the military leadership."

However, Clinton didn't try to end DADT, he CREATED it. When he took office, gays were banned from the military entirely, but he ran on a platform arguing for non-discrimination in the military, saying that gay service members should be able to serve openly. Once elected, he began to address the policy, but was faced with fierce opposition from both parties. Rather than encourage the policy along, Clinton publicly backed away from his campaign promise to the gay community. Oddly, the military leadership had little to say about it at the time all the debate occurred, and has remained largely silent on the issue until recently. And recently, many very powerful military personnel have spoken out on the need to repeal it.

Obama is behind this. The military is behind this. 81% of America is behind this. It costs the US government CRAZY amounts of money each year. It will happen, and I am okay with it taking a little while, but please don’t insult us by martyring Clinton for trying to “eliminate it” when he was, in fact, responsible for it to begin with.

Two horrific, excessively violent events in the last month have left communities in the Bay Area reeling: four young men gang raped a lesbian in Richmond, CA and now former BART police officer Johannes Mehserle fatally shot an African-American passenger who was laying prone on his stomach. I am particularly interested in these events as I wrote my dissertation on violence and gendered/racial trauma. My research, and own personal experiences, have lead me to conclude that such public acts of violence deeply affect the psyches of members of communities/groups who identify with the recipients of such violence.

But in truth, it is a recent debate on a local lesbian listerserv, of which I am a member, that has compelled me to address these two acts of violence in relation to each other. Recently on the listerv, one member commented that she was surprised and disappointed that, after weeks of dozens of messages each day about Proposition 8 during the election season, there had been so few comments on the list about Mehserle shooting of unarmed Oakland resident Oscar Grant. Shortly thereafter, another member posted that the police shooting "isn’t LGBT related at all."

I am not posting this to call out a particular individual, who, in all fairness, was in no way implying that the shooting is insignificant in the context of her post. Rather, I want to take this as an opportunity to begin a series of discussions/questions about LGBT commitment to broad issues of civil rights versus LGBT appropriation of civil rights agendas. I am growing seriously concerned that there is a trend in some LGBT communities and larger LGBT public discourse that asserts LGBT activism, especially around marriage, as a civil rights issue - and simultaneous demands of support from ethnic minority communities - without at the same time offering an LGBT organizing commitment to anti-racism and other ethnic/racial civil rights issues.

Harvey Milk deserved a better film than this.

Director Gus Van Sant’s hagiography remains true to the facts of its subject’s life while backing away from invoking the full-on, living color injustice, violence, passion, nerve, and sheer scruffy grassroots rage that fueled Milk and the emerging post-Stonewall Gay liberation movement.

Not that it doesn’t try, kind of. All the right things happen, plot-wise — a formerly closeted Milk starts a new, out life in 70s-era San Francisco with his hunky younger boyfriend; the hostility of neighboring Irish businesses in the Castro district where they settle, plus the alternating bullying and neglect of the SF Police Department, stir Milk to run for office. There’s the requisite hate crime scene, plus allusions to gay teens being forced out of their homes and into the streets of the nearest big city by homophobic parents and classmates.

Yet Milk is curiously placid and sterile, even prudish. We never see more than a tablespoon of blood at a time. The 10-second sex scene we only partially see in a dark bedroom between Milk and a boyfriend is all slap and tickle. And every character, including the runaway teen Milk befriends — Cleve Jones, who survives by turning tricks on the notoriously seedy and dangerous (though never depicted) Polk Street — looks freshly showered and dressed by the Gap.

Even violent scenes are gloved. Though the camera pulls back to a wide screen view when gays riot against police randomly raiding bars along Castro Street and beating patrons, we never see a cop actually strike anyone, just a lot of carefully choreographed wrestling followed by a scene of Milk dabbing at a small patch of blood on his boyfriend’s head. Later, when Milk directs Jones to gather a mob and march them to City Hall after one of Anita Bryant’s victories (so Milk can show up to act as peacemaker in front of the press), we get another distant shot of a faceless, strangely lethargic crowd. Even the candlelight march after Milk’s assassination seems less mournful than bovine. (Van Sant ends his film before the White Night riots, where queers burned police cars after the lenient sentencing of Milk’s murderer.)

Bitch, I’ve seen queers more fired up when Bed Bath & Beyond runs out of sale items. Where’s the passion?

Was Van Sant afraid that audiences wouldn’t be sympathetic if 70s-era gay activists were people who suffered, swore, fought back, and fucked like they meant it? If the street kids actually looked like dirty, starving, broke-ass teen hustlers?

Gay history — unedited — is ugly, angry, and violent. It’s police dragging us out of cellar bars and down to the station to gang fuck the femmes and face-rape the butches, queens, and trannies. It’s military witch hunts; suicides and “experimental therapies,” from lobotomies and electro-shock to Christian boot camps. It’s Stonewall, where we showered raiding police with bottles, locked them in the bar, and set it afire. It’s ACT UP and chaining ourselves to pharmaceutical companies’ fences to protest AIDS drugs price gouging.

Van Sant’s gentrified Milk reflects gay activism’s increasingly apologetic tone. We don’t always need to be burning police cars to prove our cred, but we shouldn’t be inviting homophobes to the table, then singing their praises if they don’t spit on us. It’s not about hugging Rick Warren and being satisfied that at least he’s being nice about denying us our civil rights. Politeness has become homophobia’s most popular mask.

Ultimately I’m glad that even this pasteurized, homogenized Milk is out there. Audiences need to see the film’s opening sequence — silent archival footage depicting police bar raids from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, with men shielding their faces from the cameras even as they are shoved into vans, handcuffed, or held in waiting rooms. I want fresh salt poured on the wounds of Proposition 8 so that queers will stop apologizing for being angry with the Mormon and Catholic Church, and for boycotting supporters. I want fresh rage directed at Barack Obama for thinking that including a gay marching band in his inauguration proceedings compensates for his having invited a notorious homophobe and anti-Semite to give the invocation.

But I’m not sure that this low-fat film will really help audience get Milk. And I’m sorry that Van Sant didn’t think we could handle the truth.

The "no shit" headline of the week award goes to National Public Radio for this story :

Study: Tolerance Can Lower Gay Kids' Suicide Risk

Gay, lesbian and bisexual teens and young adults have one of the highest rates of suicide attempts — and some other health and mental health problems, including substance abuse. A new study suggests that parental acceptance, and even neutrality, with regard to a child's sexual orientation could have a big impact in reducing this rate.

The study, published in the journal Pediatrics , found that the gay, lesbian and bisexual young adults and teens at the highest risk of attempting suicide and having some other health problems are ones who reported a high level of rejection by their families as a result of their sexual orientation.

"A little bit of change in rejecting behavior, being a little bit more accepting," says lead researcher Caitlin Ryan, "can make a significant difference in the child's health and mental health."

I live in the infamous OC. Home of St James Anglican Church, which does not allows gays. Home of Disneyland which offers insurance to gay families. Home of the Angels, the Mighty Ducks, the Clippers. Home of Loretta Sanchez and Dana Rohrabacher. The epicenter of the NO ON 6 Campaign, temporary safe-haven for Anita Bryant, home of Rick Warren's church in Lake Forest.

There is no mistake about the world famous OC; mega conservative, fundamentalist Christian, republican with great beaches and world-class waves. If you visit the website of Rick Warren's church you will find teachings promoting the submission of the wife to the husband. In addition to classifying gay people with pedophiles and practitioners of incest, he has been very vocal that women who have had abortions are no different than the Nazis and their uterus, he likened to Auschwitz.

It is nice that Melissa Etheridge wants to have a détente with Pastor Rick. She thinks that it is important that he meets some gay people who have families and family values. I hope they have a prosperous exchange. But here's the point. Why not pool your resources, gay and straight, Christian and compassionate and have a Summit of Understanding. Why not hold a Parliament of Religion like the one in 1923 in Chicago. Invite people of all faiths to promote understanding and demonstrate the ability to sit and talk and be civil(ized). Invite some women who have had abortions, some doctors who have done abortions, some gay families, some gay ministers and, even, some of those super conservative Anglicans and super-liberal Unitarians.

That is where all of this should be going. That is the organic coalition that would truly demonstrate CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. But you DON'T offer this renown bigot, outspoken hate-monger, homophobic, misogynistic man in the Western world, the biggest pulpit in history and say it is just a gesture of inclusion and goodwill. We are not that stupid and, frankly, neither are you Mr. Obama. You know this is an outrage.

So here's an idea ~ put together a team for the invocation; three or four people who actually represent and LOVE the diversity of America. Please do not put forth the worst of us who needs to be educated, explained and apologized for; this man who can validate every family who judges and condemns their gay relatives. Put forth a face, or set of faces which tell all the world who we are, who we hope to be, who inspires the change we can believe in.

Does Rick Warren have more influence than the Pope?

While stories of protests from liberals and LGBT groups have been making headlines here, comments today by Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joseph Ratzinger) have been somewhat inconsistently reported in the US media.

In a speech yesterday given to Catholic dignitaries who have gathered in Rome to celebrate Christmas (click here for an English translation and here for the relevant passage), Ratzinger focused on a theme of reasserting the story of creation as a "central part of the Christian creed." He emphasized two points: God's creation of the earth and man (in particular, man and woman as distinct sexes). He called heterosexual marriage a "sacrament of creation." And Ratzinger followed by arguing for an "ecology of man" to go alongside an ecology of nature/the planet, in which he likened saving the rain forests to "saving man from himself."

And from what does humanity need rescuing? "Theorists who talk about 'gender'."

25 years or so after feminist scholars popularized an understanding of "gender" (against and/or alongside the notion of "sex"), it seems that Ratzinger has now come to believe that the very concept of "gender" could lead to the self-destruction of the human race. Gender, he argues, separates man from creation and the Creator. While Ratzinger did not explicitly refer to homosexuality or transexuality in the text of his address, he did denounce the blurring of genders and a "sexuality of consumption," arguing definitively that the essence of humanity is "man and woman."

Ratzinger made these proclamations apparently in response to calls from members of the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights for equal rights for gays, France's proposed decriminalization of homosexuality, and increases in legislation favoring same-sex marriage. In his speech, Ratzinger argued that people such as gender theorists, who lack respect for "the Creator and the language of creationism," would destroy God's work. "We must not only defend the earth, water, and air," he pronounced. "We must also protect man from his own self-destruction."

Using the English word "gender" rather than the Italian translation "genere," Ratzinger was clearly singling out the work of Western academics who write on the topics of gender, queer, and trans theory as well as the lives and practices of queer and trans individuals. One could infer, by situating Ratzinger's comments in the context of the story of creation and a pseudo-scientific ecology of nature/man, that he has labeled even the mere concepts of transexuality and homosexuality as crimes against nature and creationism.

This could also be seen as a radical divergence from the church's supposed stance that homosexuality is not sinful, but that homosexual acts are.

While I will admit to feeling some pleasure at indirectly being cited as a threat to humanity--I mean, how often these days are theorists given credit by anyone outside of academia as having any relevance or influence whatsoever?--this is truly sobering and heart-wrenching for the Italian LGBT people and others who live in much more homo-bi-trans-phobic cultures where the Pope's words still have real power.

I just finished this article over on the Huffington Post:

Why Gay Marriage is the Wrong Issue

I had some misgivings at first, but as I read on I was at least able to understand the author's point of view.

Still, as a straight woman, despite being one who has the feeling she probably won't end up getting married, I can't imagine someone telling me that I can't get married. I do plan on adopting, though, and so I'd like to think that as a single mother I'll have the same rights as my married counterparts, and I think that's what he's arguing as well.

Thoughts from anyone else?

I am a young, gay Canadian man who is fortunate enough to live in a country where I am able to marry whomever I please and am considered equal under the law. Those equal rights have been fought for me and remain protected.

As your neighbour to the north, I wanted America out of the dark hole it has been in for the past 8 years. When you won, Mr. Obama, I was happy and relieved. There was hope for my American gay brothers and sisters.

But I am deeply saddened at the news that you have chosen Rick Warren for the invocation at your inaugration in January.

Mr. Warren is anti-gay, anti-choice and supported Proposition 8, which took away the rights of gay and lesbians to marry in the state of California. I know you are only for civil unions, Mr. Obama, which is an issue that would need its own separate letter.

Your choice of Rick Warren offends me, along with hundreds of thousands of Americans who campaigned, supported and voted for you. I am even more offended by your response to the reaction your choice has gotten.

You say that you chose Rick Warren as a symbolic gesture to bring people from all sides together. Well, Mr. Obama, your choice of Rick Warren symbolizes to me that you are anything but for the unity of the people. The man you have chosen is divisive and destructive.

I am offended that you would suggest that merely saying you disagree with the man on his social views regarding the LGBT community is an adequate response. Mr. Warren believes gay people are second class citizens. He is against equal rights. If Mr. Warren spoke out against any other minority, you would not merely "disagree" with him. 

I am offended that you would label yourself as a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian rights." Giving hate mongers a national platform to speak on is anything but fierce, Mr. Obama. It validates Rick Warren's homophobia and hatred of women. You are not a fierce advocate for gay and lesbian rights until you recognize that those rights are human rights.

I am offended that Rick Warren uses religion to excuse his homophobic and misogynistic beliefs. I am offended that he follows a religion of convenience and cherrypicked bible verses. I am offended that a "man of God" preaches hatred.

Even worse, I am offended that in this progressive moment in American history, you would pick a man who promotes hate. You will get into the White House, Mr. Obama, but it will be on the backs of gays and lesbians. It was not that long ago people like Rick Warren would have spoken out against you, as a man of colour.

When Rick Warren speaks at your inauguration in January, I will see anything but change. I will see the failure of America to seperate church and state. I will see that the civil rights of LGBT people means nothing in American politics. This is not change. This is a degradation, Mr. Obama.

I urge you to reconsider your choice of Rick Warren. I think it's terrible that in 2009, a man will be given the honour to speak at your inauguration who compares abortion to the Holocaust and believes same-sex marriage is equivalent to incest and pedophilia.

When people look back at this moment in history, they will see that Rick Warren was standing on the wrong side of history.  This is much like how most of us look back at times of segregation and realize that people supporting segregation were standing on the wrong side too. Don't stand on the wrong side with Rick Warren, Mr. Obama.

Your campaign has always been about change. Please do not break that promise.

Warm regards,

A Concerned Canadian

Dr. Warren (et al),

Who the hell do you think you are? You claim to be a man of faith. Well, I sayot you, sir, that you are not worthy to so much as pick up the Bible to which you cling so tightly as you spew forth hatred and bigotry.

I've got news for you, Dr. Warren. God loves everybody. Yes, everybody. Even the people you absolutely loath. Even, as unfortunate for Christianity as it may be, you. So, I ask you again: Who the hell do you think you are? For you to treat any of God's children as less than, for you to say that ANYBODY should be denied the right to marry, particularly LGBT's, is to say that you think God is wrong.

That's a pretty bold statement from someone who clings so tightly to the "Word of God." Each and every time you stand up and compare gay marriage to incest or pedophilia, you say to God, "I know better than you do who is worthy of your love and compassion."

In the end, that's what it all comes down to. Compassion. You can't have faith without compasion. It just doesn't work. Without compassion, faith turns hard. It's nothing more than a list of rules that you pick and choose from a really old book. That's where hatred and bigotry come from, Dr. Warren. When you pick and choose passages from the Bible to use as artillery in the war against the people YOU'VE deemed unworthy of God's love, it's not because those people actually ARE unworthy of His love - it's because you've got unwavering faith with absolutely no compassion. In order to truly understand the message of the Bible, you NEED compassion. Without compassion, the Bible is just a bunch of words - there's no meaning.

So I ask you, what kind of wold do you want to live in? One where we show compassion for everyone, even the people we don't like or understand, or a world where a few people can take away the rights of millions, just because they feel like it? I don't know about you, but I'd choose the first one.

I only pray that God treats you with more compassion than you've treated millions of people.

Sincerely,
Someone whose potential marriage you claim is as bad as incest or pedophilia.

My first rant on feministing.com.

I'm getting really sick and tired of, and I think my best friend, "Brad," is too, everyone having to label him as our-little-gay-boy-friend.

People first language is often used with people with disabilities. See what I did there? Instead of saying "disabled people," I put the people first (duh!) by saying "people with disabilities." It's simple, really. No, I'm not making a parallel between disabilities and sexual orientation; instead, I'm making a parallel with how we speak about others. Let's put Brad first, not his sexual orientation.

Brad finally protested on Friday when my friend was on the phone with a coworker and stated, "Yeah, I'm going downtown with Lauren and Brad, our gay boy friend." Is this really necessary? He rebutted, "Why do you always have to "out" me?"

I was so proud of him for standing up for himself. This woman used this sentence to out him several times previously and we've both had it!

Do you have a friend that does this? I ask you - when was the last time this friend said, "Yeah, I'm going downtown with Amber, my straight friend" - probably never!

Activism can be large or small but it all makes a big trickle-down difference. The activism I am requesting of you today is to stand up for yourself, your friends, your acquaintances, your strangers and tell others not to out us for the sake of outing us.

I'll close with a pun.

Your little lesbian friend,
lauren.

I, like almost everyone I know, have been too submerged in preparing for finals lately to really post much, but this article was too good to be left unposted or unread. Straight from the fabulous Pam Spaulding's blog , this article highlights the REAL DIFFERENCES between civil unions and marriages. I've heard too many people in my life recently tell me to get over the semantics and "take what you can get" in the way of civil unions; but that's simply not good enough. Separate is NOT equal, and I will never settle for less than what I constitutionally deserve.

I'm only posting the first (and best) part of the blog post, but you should definitely go here and read the whole thing if you're interested.

NJ Commission: Civil Unions 'encourage unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children'
by: craigkg
Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 02:52:20 AM EST

In a report due to be be released soon (10 AM here), a New Jersey commission charged with (among other things) "evaluat[ing] the implementation, operation and effectiveness of the [New Jersey Civil Union Act,] collect[ing] information about the act's effectiveness [... and] determin[ing] whether additional protections are needed" has unanimously found New Jersey Civil Unions to be deficient in providing the protections readily availed to those married in New Jersey:

This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

The commission report has not yet been released, but the Associated Press obtained a copy of the report by the Civil Union Review Commission and released a wire story on it. The commission was created by the Civil Union Act when it was passed and signed into law in 2007. The Civil Union Act was passed in response to the October 2006 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v Harris that required the state to "either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days" to grant the constitutional rights bestowed by marriage for same sex couples. Since its formation, it has held several hearings and taken public testimony on nine different occasions hearing from over 150 people. It released an initial report in February and the initial conclusions of that report showed the Commission was leaning towards marriage equality finding

1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.
3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.
6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.
8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color.
9. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.

While the commission is likely to add to these findings in its final report based on testimony taken and evidence gathered since the initial report, this list of initial conclusions is not likely to be diminished in any way. Its chorus of rationale for supporting the extension of marriage equality in the Garden State is only likely to grow longer. Indeed, as stated above according to the the AP report, the final report will state "This commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."

I've been thinking a lot about gay rights, gay visibility and the "normalization" (forgive the term) of gay culture into mainstream culture since Prop 8 passed.  It's brought me to a bunch of different ideas about how the rights movement stands for GLBT Americans and what can be done to really help what's going on in the movement.

Now, I realize that the ways in which LGBT folks are visible has changed over time.  Twenty to thirty years ago, just the act of coming out was a momentous occasion no matter where it was you were situated in the country -- a liberal area or a conservative one.  Just the simple act of publicly declaring your sexuality is something which was so profound that it caused controversy in and of itself, to the point that "Silence or Death" was an activist slogan adopted when HIV/AIDS hit the gay community.

Presently, coming out in the places most people live is not as huge a deal.  There's still some backlash in some areas, and it's not the "oh, ok. cool!" that it probably will be in some time, but visibility to the cause has taken a new turn.  Gay people are everywhere and depicted not just as villains, but also as kind of folk heroes in a sense.  A gay person, no matter the gender, is being depicted more and more as a developed human being who happens to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender.

As we've seen with the current marriage debate, this has ALWAYS been about what the genders are "supposed" to do and how that plays down into the way society "should" operate.  It doesn't matter if you're going to be miserable.  It doesn't matter if the idea of what people "should" be attracted to is totally incompatible with what they feel.  It certainly doesn't matter that social stigma may be a leading cause of the huge discrepancy between heterosexual teen and queer teen suicide rates where queers are much more likely to die by their own hands than their straight peers.  What matters is what man and woman are supposed to do, not really what makes someone happy and feel whole.

Ok, I have a terrible, guilty and un-feminist confession. I watched both seasons of "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila" and (for the most part) enjoyed them.

I tried watching the first episode of that new bisexual dating show MTV has but I couldn't do it, it creeps me out that they are having indentical twins kiss a whole bunch of the same people. (That is just my personal opinion, I have nothing against other people who like to see that.)

However, one theme that came up at the beginning of the first two seasons, as well as this new show (before I became creeped out by it) is what I like to call "lesbian star rankings".

Basically, in the first episode of all three shows the lesbians/bisexual girls say they are a certain star rating based on what they have done with men. "Platinum star" is when you have never done anything with a man, "gold star" is when you have only kissed a man ect. ect. The " precious metal star" you are decreases in value depending on how much you have done with men.

I myself am a lesbian and have NEVER heard of any of these "precious metal rankings" anywhere but on MTV. I cannot imagine asking another woman her "precious metal" or calling myself a "precious metal". I mean, someone else's sexual history is none of my buisness(with the exception of a parter who has had unprotected sex and no STD tests). I think it is safe to say that many lesbians would agree with me on that one.

This is pure specultation but I suspect those "precious metal rankings" are not usually used by women. I suspect that they are used by men when talking about women. I COULD BE WRONG THOUGH!

Frankly, I find these "precious metal star rankings" really dehumanizing. They make it seem like lesbianism is a form of virginity and that having sex with men makes women less valuable.

It is the same virgin/whore concept but with an especially creepy twist.

I guess my main question is Have any of you ever heard of lesbian "precious metal rankings"? If so, where and in what context?

Here is some evidence/an example.

Five years ago I made the decision to go to school to become a teacher. I had finished an art degree 3 years previous and had contemplated the path my life would take next. I had always thrived in an environment where I could help individuals learn and was so inspired when I spent time with children. Becoming a teacher was to me the epitome of the profession I wanted to pursue.

 Truthfully I was very apprehensive. The teacher I wanted to be was someone that students could connect with, someone who lived honestly in the world and constantly strived to make the world a better place. Five years ago I wasn’t sure I could be the open, honest, sincere teacher I wanted to be because I identify as a lesbian and at the time was in a long-term relationship with a women for 3 years. What would the students and parents think? Will the parents even allow their children to be taught by a homosexual? They might automatically assume that I will have a negative influence on their children, and “make them gay”…. These are some of the many criticisms I anticipated facing if I chose to be a teacher.

 5 Years later, I am still living in Canada, am legally married to my long term female partner and just last month I came out to my grade 7 students. What did getting married mean to me? Despite my apprehension and deep-rooted fear of being an “out” teacher, I finally for the first time in my life felt confident and empowered to tell the truth… to be myself. I was now married, wearing a ring, recognized by the government of Canada as equal to a heterosexual marriage under the law, and I was not going to lie about my life anymore.  I owed it to myself, to my wife, and to my students.

 After I made this decision I was often asked “How are you going to tell them?”. I knew that I did not want to make an announcement, that I didn’t want to make it a big deal and that I wanted to share my life in the same way anyone of my colleagues might talk about their partner. I wanted it to simply roll off my tongue. I had decided that when/if I was asked whether or not I was married I would tell the truth. In fact I rehearsed my responses to multiple questions in order to make sure I got it “ right”. 

 Two and a half months passed without a question. Then one day in the middle of November a student very randomly asked, “Ms. McNeil are you married?” There it was, the question I had been waiting for, I could feel my face flush and my heart pound, was I going to answer it “right”? I responded “yes” and then promptly changed the subject. 

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where the blindingly, hilariously idiotic things written by marriage-equality opponents are given exactly the treatment they deserve.

"If gayosity IS genetic, it's simply Darwin's way of eliminating the flawed among us, by making it absolutely impossible for them to naturally reproduce." --reader comment from San Diego Union-Tribune

I feel a song coming on!

You are the very model of a guru of gayosity:
You're very quick to school us on its reprobate atrocity;
Your logic's unassailable--and witness the profundity
Of arguing that marriage is conditioned on fecundity!

...But usually, you homophobes display a strong affinity
For viewing all creation as the product of divinity.
So how did Darwin creep into your glib religiosity,
You sacrilegious model of a guru of gayosity?

This is cross-posted from my blog, Sublimefemme Unbound:

I hate being called a lady. It's almost as bad as being showered with "yes, ma'am's" by my students! I'm not against manners; to the contrary, I value them highly and even keep a copy of Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior on hand to refer to in case of an etiquette crisis. (I kid you not.)

"Lady" not only means that a woman is polite and considerate but also that she's "proper" and/or "virtuous." Which of course implies that other women are not. Maybe that's why, for me, it's a category that tends to resist ironic appropriation. However, I will admit that there are a few important exceptions:

1. when used by drag queens
2. in the Tom Jones song, "She's a Lady"
3. when used by the glorious Lady Brett Ashley, whose namesake (a character in The Sun Also Rises) is independent, sexually liberated and drinks her way across Europe. What's not to like?

WorldNetDaily has a post about a teacher who had the nerve to make senior level English students think critically about the ways that the homesexual population is treated by society.  She had them fill out a questionnaire that was meant to aid discussion that included the following questions:

• What do you think caused your heterosexuality?


• When and how did you decide you were a heterosexual?


• Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?


• Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?


• Do your parents know that you are straight? Do your friends and/or roommate(s) know? How did they react?


• Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are and keep it quiet?


• Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyles?


• A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. So you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?


• With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?


• Statistics show that lesbians have the lowest incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Is it really safe for a woman to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle and run the risk of disease and pregnancy?


• Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?


• Would you want your child to be heterosexual, knowing the problems that s/he would face?

Apparently one of the parents as well as the author of the WND post believe " this was outright indoctrination to the homosexual viewpoint." Even without reading anything from the teacher's point of view, it's blatantly obvious that the teacher was not trying to "make students question being straight" and that they were simply meant to make students think about how they would feel if they were asked these questions due to their sexual orientation. If anyone feels these questions are ludicrous , they should ask themselves why a segment of our population is asked them everyday, and not just in English class.

Is it just me, or does it seem like most queer relationships are always in perpetual state of impending disaster?

Don't get me wrong. I've seen the coolest of queer cats fall in love, get all goo-ey eyed for a few months, and then, outta nowhere, the shit's over and they're plastered on someone's sofa watching the latest poorly made queer HBO series on DVD.

One day everything is cool. Or maybe that day never existed but you still wanna front like it did. The next day you wake up and talk and realize you're triggered by something, or somebody sneezed wrong, and then boom. It's over. Give me back my shit.

I have my theories about it. In my own experience, there are never any huge blow-up's. No cat fights in the streets and, at least at first, no angry emails & shit. Just the reluctant acceptance that either you're too fucked up, or they're too fucked up, and since the world doesn't seem to want you together anyway, it just won't work out right now.

And I guess it's true that for queer folks -- especially queer women & transfolks of color -- love isn't necessarily hard to find because after years of rejection we foolishly love hard and easily when we're around the right people. It's just that love is harder to keep.

So what? Even straight love&relationships suck, so what's my point?

I guess my main gripe is that queer relationships can be very isolating. With me and a lot of the folks I know, I can't share my love with my family, or close childhood friends. Even when you build intentional communities, they still seem hella transient. Folks move away. People grow distant. Family is hard to find.

And especially when you're young and black or brown and queer and dealing with all of this shit on top of the average inadequacies of youth.

I read something a while back in Kai Wright's Drifting Toward Love that really struck a chord. He wrote about the lack of queer mentorship. How older queer folks are afraid of being stigmatized as pedophiles for reaching out to younger folks, and how politically motivated that representation has been since the culture wars of the 80's. And I guess I can imagine how for a lot of older queer folks, their youth was hard enough, so revisiting it through someone else might bring up a lot of shit. 

But seriously, we need it.

We need healthy relationships with older folks who've been through this shit already. As cheesy as it sounds, we need to the guidance of our elders -- even if you're only 30. We need to know how to deal with break-ups -- both romantic and familial. We need to know the basics, like how to survive, or how to recover when you feel like you can't. Even if you can't tell us that shit gets better, at least show us that it'll be okay.

So here's my ask: If you are a queer person over 30, adopt a mentee. F'real. If you know a queer person over 30, tell them too.

And that ends my rambling ass post.

The end.

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where anti-equality idiots have their shining moment in the sun!

"I also wanted to ask why you think we hate gays. Just because we believe they should not marry doesn't mean we hate them. If you take something away from your child that's not theirs do you hate them because of it? No, its just not theirs and they should have it, simple as that no emotions are attached to the action. Now the child may hate YOU for it but can you blame them they are only children. This is the same case."  ---Sacramento Bee reader comment

We don't hate you---we just think of you as undisciplined four-year-olds who require strict control and discipline by the government! .....Of course, there are the same people who grow enraged at the very notion of a "nanny state," but don't point out their inconsistency to them, or you'll find yourself on the Naughty Chair.

Prop 8's passing has pissed off a lot of people, since 48% percent said they wanted gay marriage to be allowed (I'm still confused why this is even a question). Shouldn't all the American people have the same rights? And isn't it considered discrimination if you eliminate the rights to one specific group of citizens? Isn't that why slavery and the holocaust were all about...discrimination? One of my biggest pet peeves through out the election was when prop 8 supporters kept saying that they have gay friends and that they love them to death...well, it seems to me that if you have friends that are gay you would want them to have the same rights and happiness that you have?

Ok, that is really the wildest and most egregious conversation I have ever seen on The View.  I have always thought Sherry Shepard isn't very smart (the world is flat) and Elizabeth cannot even think about any view that doesn't confirm her puny ideas but today they talked without even knowing the nouns they are using and talked as if they had authority.

"Focus on Your Own Damn Family" is a phrase consistently used at gay rights protests, especially when James Dobson and his hateful religious "ministry," Focus on the Family, has anything to do with spurring said protest.  In fact, I saw a few of these signs at City Hall in NYC this weekend.

But the phrase took on an entirely different meaning to me today when I read an article off Huffington Post stating that the group is having to lay off 20% of its employees .

Really, James?!  Really?  I mean, I'm feeling a little bit like Amy Poehler here, but, REALLY?!?  Ohmygod, are you serious ?!

You were so worried about gay marriage ruining the familes of Californians that you donated over $500,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign, and yet you now have so many budget cuts that you can't afford to keep your OWN DAMN MEMBERS in paying jobs.  What about THEIR families, James?  Apparently you don't care too much about families being ruined by hunger or debt, only by the possibility of them being "threatened" or "unsanctified" by a lesbian couple down the street (logic which I don't think I'll ever understand).

It's one thing for you to eat the debt from your own discriminatory donations; it's quite another for you to fire your own employees for lack of funds after so happily giving the money that could have kept them employed to a cause that will undoubtedly be overturned by the courts.

Granted, since they work for/are members of Focus on the Family to begin with, they barely even deserve my symapthy at the loss of income, but somehow I just find this appalling.

James Dobson--asshole to his OWN people, too!

In light of recent events, I thought it would be fitting to revise Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speach for LGBT'S.

My fellow Americans, gay and straight sisters and brothers alike,
I have a dream...

... In a sense, I have come to you to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all people would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have a humanitarian crisis today that stretches from Maine to California, which is made worse every day by the ignorant behavior and hateful rhetoric of political parties, voters, politicians, churches, and schools, who are using their social and political power to take away the human rights of gay people to be free to love. These shackles of oppression significantly undermine the liberty and pursuit of happiness of all Americans because a loss of freedom for one group is a loss of freedom for all groups who are proud to call themselves Americans.

For the record, I was determined not to write about Proposition 8 passing in California. (Because really, how many times and in how many ways can you say, "I hate you, 52% of California. I hate you. I hate you"?) But then I read the article in this past Wednesday's New York Times about Scott Eckern, the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He resigned earlier this week after activists outed his $1,000 contribution to the Yes on 8 folks and several prominent gay men in theater complained — including Marc Shaiman, the Tony Award-winning composer ("Hairspray") who called Eckern to say that he would not let his work be performed in the theater.

Now Eckern, along with Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the ballot measure, are defending their bigotry as a constitutional right and complaining that those who protest their actions are being intolerant. Per Schubert: "No matter your opinion on Prop. 8, we should all agree that it is wrong to intimidate or harass anyone for exercising their constitutional rights."

No sense of irony, straight guys. But hearing them play the you're-the-real-bigot-for-punishing-me-for-exercising-my-right-to-free-speech card just got on my last gay nerve. So here we are. I'm writing about Prop 8.

I try to be an understanding person, but more and more, people just make it hard for me. The other day, a little old lady on a street corner tried to hand me a Christan pamphlet, I smiled and said no thank you. A few paces ahead I passed a younger man sitting on a square block of cement. He glared at me menacingly.

    “Take it,” he said. “You should.”

It seems like everyone's edges are a little sharp these days, with the election a little over a week behind us. With oppression and discrimination written into the state constitution, you'd think the bigots would be happy. But they seem even more incensed, perhaps angered by our own shows of force, that we're not just rolling over and playing dead.

What bothers me most about the Yes on Prop 8 crowd is their use of the word “morality”. What morals could be better than to love and be good to one another, and try not to do anyone harm? If we follow their example, morals are just arbitrary rules by which one lives one's life. How can two people marrying be immoral, when taking someone else's rights away is not? The way I see it, they're the ones who are immoral. Heartless. Cruel.

And it hurts. Even more than the first time. You see, I've done this already. Four years ago, I was living in Michigan when Proposal 2 passed in a decisive victory for the homophobia brigades. Gay marriage never did happen in Michigan, but now it's really, really illegal. The language of the proposal banned the government from recognizing same sex marriage or “similar unions,” meaning that now public institutions—like city and state governments, public schools, and universities—now cannot offer same sex domestic partner benefits. Queer folks at my alma mater, Michigan State, used to get domestic partner benefits. Now they don't.

I found this article at work. Because kids seeing their teacher make a commitment of love is sooo inappropriate. I fail to see how this is different from inviting kids to a hetero marriage.

I can see why parents wouldn't want their kids to miss school, but somehow I don't think it would have caused the outrage if the teacher married a man.

written by Tim Love and Morgan J CurtisCross posted at Speaking Out.

TAASA has recommitted itself to social justice work, thus moving our anti-oppression work to the forefront of our efforts. As we have taken our anti-oppression approach to sexual violence prevention out into the communities and rape crisis centers across the state, we've discovered many programs and communities struggling with both oppression in their community and ways to get their organizations to support social justice work in concrete ways. Inspired by the TAASA membership resolution process, we decided to create a personal resolution to address two interrelated forms of oppression that are closely linked to sexual violence - heterosexism and homophobia. We hope you will find the resolution a useful tool as you work to address homophobia in your life, within the organizations you work with and in your community as a whole.The following resolution highlights some key problems with homophobia and heterosexism, including its impact on all people, regardless of sexual orientation. There are a variety of ways this resolution could be used. Hanging it up in your office could spark conversations with co-workers and community partners. Sharing it with people during your anti-oppression and prevention trainings gives them an opportunity to take action in a meaningful way, something that people often seek after attending such trainings. How else can you envision using this resolution? Are there any key points that you think were not included in the resolution?Stay tuned for a follow-up post on additional ways the resolution can be used as well as tips for how to carry out your commitment to ending homophobia and heterosexism. Please indicate in the comments section if you post this commitment and where you post it.You can download a pdf of the resolution here.

Cross-posted from Fundamentally Flawed , where the wit and wisdom of the anti-marriage-equality brain trust is on display for all to enjoy and ridicule.

"Yes on 8, the gays claim its all hate, but that argument is weaker than my sisster Kate, who likes to date (men), lawsuits attempt to retailate, but just like the election they will meet the same fate, so again I say YES ON 8!" --Orange County Register reader comment