Skip to content


GLBT News

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

What is the sound of One Weasel Waffling?

Postby Gatito Grande » Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:43 pm

Quote:
Bush: Too Soon for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Reuters

Jul 2 2003 1:16PM



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday declined to endorse the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriages, saying he did not know if one was necessary yet.



Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and a close Bush ally in Congress, said on Sunday he "absolutely" supported a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He spoke after the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.



"I don't know if it's necessary yet," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing."



He added: "What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."



U.S. law defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States but Vermont allows civil unions.



Debate over the issue has intensified since Canada announced earlier this month it would legalize gay marriages. The U.S. high court last week struck down state sodomy laws, a decision that conservative critics say could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.




my.aol.com/news/news_stor...1649171121



GG One "notion" under a groove . . . or two! :pride Out



Gatito Grande
 


Re: New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers

Postby maudmac » Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:31 pm

About that Wal-Mart stuff...I hate to say it about Wal-Mart, because my hatred for Wal-Mart is exceedingly passionate, but good for them. I am definitely surprised. One less reason to boycott them...but I still ain't shoppin' there.



This really stuck out to me:
Quote:
Arthur D. Ally, president of the Timothy Plan, a religious-based investment group that had pressured the company about the magazines, said today that he would not sell Wal-Mart stock because of the revised antidiscrimination policy but would object to certain sensitivity training programs like "taking every employee in an organization and indoctrinating them in the homosexual agenda."




I keep seeing references to the "homosexual/gay agenda." I'm quite gay and most of the people I have contact with in RL and online are as queer as football bats...and I still don't know what this "homosexual agenda" thing is. Do they think we might turn them gay? Do they think we might convince them that we are actually really human beings and we probably ought to have a right or two? Is there a heterosexual agenda?



sigh



Assholes.



Oh, and, yeah, I'm still boycotting Exxon, too.



It's a wonder I'm able to buy anything, anywhere.


Pussy crack corn...and I don't care! -- Margaret Cho

maudmac
 


Re: Well its official now.

Postby sprhrgrl » Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:41 pm

I wrote a lot of gay agendas. . . But that was when I was president of various gay/straight alliances and such. . .

sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything


racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

sprhrgrl
 


There's good news today...

Postby Ben Varkentine » Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:05 pm

Quote:
From: FAIR [mailto:fair@fair.org]

Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:38 PM

To: FAIR-L

Subject: Savage Fired by MSNBC





FAIR-L

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Media analysis, critiques and activism



ACTIVISM UPDATE:

Savage Fired by MSNBC



July 7, 2003



Michael Savage's MSNBC show, The Savage Nation, was cancelled today

because of homophobic remarks made by the host on the July 5 edition of

the show, according to an Associated Press (AP) report. Those

comments--labeling a caller "a sodomite" and telling him to "get AIDS and

die"-- were the subject of a FAIR action alert earlier today.



MSNBC spokesperson Jeremy Gaines told AP, "His comments were extremely

inappropriate and the decision was an easy one."



Over the past five months, FAIR activists have written more than 2,000

individual letters to MSNBC expressing their concerns about Savage's

record of bigotry and hate, and criticizing the network for hiring a host

who routinely traffics in slurs while firing host Phil Donahue over his

anti-war views.



Savage can still be heard on some 300 radio stations across the country.


Ben



"Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always

ready to defend their most precious possession."

Ben Varkentine
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby MusicBecca » Mon Jul 07, 2003 9:41 pm

Hi, I'm a lurker here. I just wanted to come out of my lurkdome to post a link to a site where there's a poll about banning gay marriage. It used to say 81% against banning it but that has dramatically dropped in less than two days down to the 40's. Here's the link: www.gopusa.com/ the polls on the left hand side a little less than half way down the page. So, if everyone could go there and vote no that'd be great. And tell everyone about it too so that we can get it back up. Can't let them win. :pride

"Hold on if you feel like letting go" - GC

MusicBecca
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Gatito Grande » Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:20 pm

MusicBecca, FWIW, I voted in the poll you linked. But be aware that that site http://www.gopusa.com, is expressly set up for conservatives (GOP: "Grand Old Party" aka, Republicans---and not Log Cabin ones!). In other words, it's going to tend to get people on that site who are *probably* not inclined to support gay rights (i.e. equality).



Don't let the low numbers there get you down---the 'phobes are freaking, because in the overall court of human opinion, we are winning!



GG Slowly, but still . . . :pride Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: There's good news today...

Postby T Maclay » Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:48 am

I have looked to see if this has already been posted but I cant see it so if it has Im sorry.



Transsexuals win right to marry



Kamal Ahmed, political editor

Sunday July 6, 2003

The Observer



Britain's 5,000 transsexuals who have gone through a full medical sex change are to be given the legal right to marry and have the gender changed on their birth certificate.

In a move that the Government will promote as another step to treating everyone equally, whatever their sexuality, the new Constitutional Affairs Department will announce a Bill to bring about the changes in the next fortnight.



The Bill will introduce laws which mean that employers cannot demand to know a person's sexual history, and that anyone who has gone through a sex change should be treated as the sex they are after the operation.



It will also say that insurance companies must treat transsexuals as the sex of their choice and that the Government must allow men who have changed their sex to female to claim their state pension at the age of 60.



Transsexuals have lived in legal limbo for decades. At present they are not legally allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, as their birth certificate still carries the gender they were born with.



This means that they are allowed to marry someone of the same sex even though it is illegal for anyone else. If convicted of a crime, women who have changed sex to male face being sent to a male prison.



Although the move to change the law will be welcomed by campaigners, it is likely to be attacked by Church organisations, which will say it undermines the traditional family.



Whitehall sources admitted that the Government could be seen as becoming obsessed with what were described as 'narrow sectional interests'.



'Obviously it is not exactly mainstream, but it shows that when we talk about equality, we mean it,' said one official.



Last week the Government announced that rights for gay couples would be brought into line with those of heterosexual married couples.



Officially registered gay partnerships will have the same pension and divorce rights as other marriages.



The Government's move on transsexuals came after the European Court of Rights ruled in 2002 that the Government's failure to recognise people who have changed their sex breached the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into British law.









Whilst I think that this is a great step forward especially for transsexuals, I still find it hard that they are talking about EVERYONE having equal rights, but as gay or leasbians you still can not legally marry, you can sign a peicie of paper to say you are in a gay relationship that will give you all the rights etc, but not you still cant get married. - How is that equal.



But hey at least things are moving forward, and they are starting to see that we are here to stay and that they need to start treating us a equal.

Bored-Now

T Maclay
 


Re: Same sex marriage in Canada, part 2

Postby Evercat » Tue Jul 08, 2003 11:28 am

British Columbia just joined Ontario in legalizing same-sex marriage. :)



www.canoe.ca



or maybe



cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Cana...10-cp.html



"The B.C. Court of Appeal lifted a one-year moratorium on same-sex marriages Tuesday, clearing the way for couples to tie the knot immediately."

--
10^57 varieties

Edited by: Evercat at: 7/8/03 10:30 am
Evercat
 


Re: There's good news today...

Postby Amymlc » Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:08 pm

Here's a little bit more on the Savage story that I got in my inbox:



FAIR-L

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

Media analysis, critiques and activism



ACTION ALERT:

Savage Homophobia on MSNBC:

Michael Savage tells caller: "Get AIDS and die"



July 7, 2003



When radio talkshow host Michael Savage was given his own show by the

cable TV channel MSNBC, network executives said that the new show should

not be judged by Savage's previous hate-filled remarks, but by what he

said on the TV show itself. A recent outburst by Savage, however,

suggests that the host's prejudice and hatefulness have not been

constrained by his new venue.



The incident started when a caller to Michael Savage's July 5 MSNBC

show,

Savage Nation, apparently tried to get some kind of prank on the show.

Savage responded with a homophobic tirade. Here's the transcript from

the

Nexis news media database:





---

SAVAGE: So you're one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I am.



SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and

die,

you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You

got

nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got

nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis.



OK, do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't

have

a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Get me another

one,

put another sodomite on. No more calls out of-- let's go to the next

scene. I don't care about these bums. They mean nothing to me. They're

all

sausages. Next scene; onto the next scene on the Savage Nation.

---





This does not seem to be the first time Savage has made such comments;

the

San Jose Mercury News reported (2/27/99) that "Savage has apologized to

gay activists after saying he wished they would get AIDS." Such

homophobia has long been an integral part of Savage's routine; when he

wanted to insult the pro-gun control Million Mom March, for example, he

dubbed it "the Million Dyke March" (5/15/00).



He has spoken of "the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on

the

white race" (San Francisco Bay Guardian, 9/20/00). In his book Savage

Nation, he complained that Sen. Hillary Clinton and Supreme Court

justices

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor have "feminized and

homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become

passive, receptive and masochistic."



When critics pointed out these earlier remarks to MSNBC-- a cable

channel

co-owned by General Electric and Microsoft-- they were dismissed by

MSNBC

president Erik Sorenson, along with similar attacks on women and people

of

color. "He hasn't said anything bigoted or hateful on MSNBC," Sorenson

told the St. Petersburg Times (3/7/03). "His main thrust for us is going

to be national security. I'm going to watch his show...and I'm going to

give him the benefit of the doubt."



Asked about specific slurs made by Savage, like references to

"homosexual

perversion," Sorenson said: "Those statements as quoted by GLAAD and

FAIR

are not appropriate for MSNBC.... Those kinds of statements will not be

permitted. And if they do happen, they won't happen more than once."



Now that Savage has denounced a caller as "one of the sodomites" who

"should only get AIDS and die," will Sorenson admit that Savage says

things that are bigoted on his network? Or does he still describe

Savage

as someone "brash, passionate and smart" who's providing "compelling

opinion and analysis with an edge"?





ACTION: Please contact MSNBC to share your concerns about Michael

Savage's

bigotry:



CONTACT:

Neal Shapiro, NBC News President

mailto:neal.shapiro@nbc.com



Bob Wright, NBC President

mailto:bob.wright@nbc.com



Erik Sorenson, MSNBC President

mailto:Erik.Sorenson@MSNBC.com



MSNBC Feedback

mailto:feedback@msnbc.com



As always, please remember that your comments are taken more seriously

if

you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your

correspondence.



Amymlc
 


Re: There's good news today...

Postby tyche » Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:14 pm

I came across this incredibly sweet story about a newly married lesbian couple:

www.detnews.com/2003/edit...210552.htm

tyche
 


Re: Same sex marriage in Canada, part 2

Postby Kalita » Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:30 am

Thanks for that link, tyche. I'm so proud of my city for being so welcoming and open.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. "

- Margaret Mead

Kalita
 


Newsweek!

Postby sprhrgrl » Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:45 pm

This, as I explained to my mother in the grocery store, makes me very happy.





It doesn't matter what kind of slant they put on the article (which I haven't read), but just that they had Normal Gays on the cover of newsweek. Not gay stars, but normal gays. Not even just lesbians, the more societally accepted hot chicks, but normal gays. Men and women.





This is so great for the young queer kids, who will see it and be yay. It doesn't matter what the article says, I concluded, because they're not going to ask the parents to whom they aren't yet out to buy the magazine anyway.



sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything


Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

sprhrgrl
 


Re: Newsweek!

Postby Cipher » Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:04 pm

I saw that issue in the store and bought it for the article. Looks like the online article is the same one in the magazine.



Well sprhrgrl, they might have a subscription to it and wouldn't have to explicitly buy it, though if Newsweek generally has a more liberal slant I would expect conservative parents to be less likely to subscribe to it.

Cipher
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby sheila wt » Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:30 am

CNN has a poll about same-sex marriage, and it's not going well for us... They also have an article about the same-sex marriage battle on Massachusetts court.

--------------------------
"She had tasted Willow on her tongue, and she had worn Willow on her skin. There wasn't a shower in the world that could have washed that away." (Terra Firma, by Tulipp)

sheila wt
 


Re: Newsweek!

Postby xita » Mon Jul 14, 2003 8:45 pm

It's not as bad as it could be but we could be doing better on that poll. Shame.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."


-Willie Wonka

xita
 


Re: Newsweek!

Postby emma peel » Mon Jul 14, 2003 8:54 pm

The CNN poll is a little better now than when I voted a couple of hours earlier. Then it was 60% 'No," 40% "Yes." Now, it's 58% "No," and 42% "Yes," for what it's worth. I guess a few more supportive folks must have voted.

C'mon, Kittens, let's go vote!!

Janice

Edited to add: Darn, they changed the poll. Oh, well. It could have been worse, I suppose.

Edited by: emma peel at: 7/14/03 8:12 pm
emma peel
 


Hell yeah!

Postby Gatito Grande » Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:53 pm

:applause :banana :pride



Quote:
School District, Gay Student Settle Suit

The Associated Press

Jul 18 2003 1:21PM



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A teenager disciplined by his school district for talking about being gay will get $25,000, an apology from school officials and his disciplinary record cleared.



Thomas McLaughlin, 14, of Jacksonville settled his lawsuit Thursday against the Pulaski County Special School District, which disciplined him for speaking to his junior high classmates about his sexual orientation.



``I'm really glad that this is all over,'' McLaughlin said Thursday. ``No more students should have to go through what I did.''



In a statement issued through his secretary, Superintendent Don Henderson said the school district was satisfied with the settlement.



The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in April, alleging teachers disciplined McLaughlin for his remarks as well as preached to him from the Bible and told his parents that he was gay.



Before the lawsuit was filed, the district wrote the ACLU saying that McLaughlin's discussions disrupted the learning process and argued that it was appropriate to discipline him.



A general condition of the settlement requires that the school district not disclose a student's sexual orientation or punish a student for talking about his or her sexual orientation outside the classroom.



The ACLU hopes other schools will learn from the suit, said Rita Sklar, who directs the ACLU in Arkansas.



``Public schools aren't above the Constitution,'' she said, ``and they can't get away with silencing gay students and violating their rights.''




my.aol.com/news/news_stor...3211415500



GG There's his first year of college paid for . . . :grin Out





Gatito Grande
 


Dem Pres Candidates and Same-Sex Marriage

Postby Gatito Grande » Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:59 pm

[Mods, please excuse a rare consecutive post---the topic is completly different]



HRC held a Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum this week, w/ 7 of 9 (heh-heh: hottie! ;) ) candidates attending.



Below are three reports on the event (they all cover it just a little differently, and I think it's really important to have a fuller picture):



Quote:
Gay Issues Get Democratic Field's Backing

Candidates give a strong commitment to the rights cause, but the top-tier contenders say they cannot support same-sex marriage.



By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer





WASHINGTON — All of the Democratic presidential candidates on Tuesday endorsed an exhaustive list of measures to bar discrimination against homosexuals, although the leading contenders balked at embracing gay marriage.



Despite the resistance on that issue, the candidate statements to the Human Rights Campaign — a homosexual advocacy group — may mark the broadest commitment yet to the gay rights cause by White House aspirants.



In response to a questionnaire and in remarks to the group at Tuesday's forum here, all of the Democrats endorsed equal treatment for gays in hiring and adoption. All except Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said they would seek to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy implemented under former President Clinton and allow gays to serve openly in the military.



All of the candidates except Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said they would support "civil unions" that would offer gay couples most of the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals. Edwards did not take a position on the matter; Lieberman indicated he would leave the decision to the states.



But the six leading candidates — Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, along with Edwards, Lieberman and Graham — said they oppose providing same-sex couples the right to marry, as gay activists are seeking.



The event itself marked a milestone in the growing political influence of gays, especially in the Democratic Party. Organizers said it was the first time such a large group of presidential candidates had gathered specifically to address issues raised by the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.



All of the Democrats appeared in person except Graham and Edwards, who cited other commitments. All completed the group's questionnaire, which explored their views on 10 issues.



"This is an extraordinary statement about the journey traveled," Kerry said of the forum.



The session came as gay activists continue to applaud the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down state anti-sodomy laws. The activists are awaiting a decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Court that could make that state the first to recognize gay marriage.



Tuesday's event also represented the latest stop in a steeplechase of candidate forums hosted by interest groups representing such constituencies as Latinos, African Americans and government employees. On Monday, the leaders of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People excoriated three of the candidates — Gephardt, Lieberman and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio — for missing their gathering in Miami Beach.



Peter LaBarbera, a senior policy analyst with the Culture and Family Institute, a conservative think tank, said the Democratic contenders could pay a political price for backing so much of the gay movement's agenda.



"They are playing to what they regard as their base, but they are forgetting there is a whole other country out there," LaBarbera said.



Polls in recent years have shown growing acceptance of gays in many respects. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll after June's Supreme Court decision found that Americans, by a 2-1 ratio, believed the law should permit homosexuals to have sex in their own home. But in the same survey, 55% of Americans said gay marriage should not be permitted.



At Tuesday's session, moderated by ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson, the issue of gay marriage provoked the most fireworks.



The rules and requirements for marriage are set by state, not federal, law. But gay activists believe a president who supported gay marriage could encourage states to authorize it through the bully pulpit.



Kucinich, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, the three candidates generally considered the longest-shots in the field, said gays should be provided the legal right to marry.



As Vermont's governor, Dean signed into law the nation's only civil union bill — a fact he touted at the forum.



All of the contenders except Lieberman and Edwards said that if states sanction gay couples through a marriage or civil union statute, Washington should provide such couples all federal benefits available to heterosexual married couples — such as survivors' benefits under Social Security and hospital visitation rights.



Lieberman said he would examine federal statutes one-by-one to determine which benefits to extend to gay couples. Edwards didn't indicate a precise position, although he generally indicated support for "partnership benefits" to gay couples.



Throughout the 90-minute session, the top-tier contenders struggled to explain why they supported civil unions but not gay marriage.



Lieberman said he resisted the idea of marriage for gays "because marriage has a special status in our culture, our society and our history."



Kerry and Gephardt both suggested they supported civil unions because they believed it would be more acceptable to the public than marriage for homosexual couples. Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them.



"We need to achieve what we can, and then we will see where we are," he said.



Sharpton drew loud applause by deriding the candidates who supported civil unions while opposing gay marriage. "That's like saying we'll give blacks or whites or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry," he said.



President Bush has said he opposes gay marriage. But he hasn't taken a position on calls by some conservatives for a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.



A push for such an amendment has been fueled by concern among conservatives that the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down state laws barring gay sex in private locations might encourage state courts to void state laws barring gay marriage.




www.latimes.com/news/nati...nes-nation



(Requires registration to view)



Quote:
Dems Stop Short of Endorsing Gay Marriage

Wed Jul 16, 3:08 AM ET



By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON - The leading Democratic presidential candidates support gay couples having the same legal rights as husbands and wives, but stop short of saying they have a right to marry.



Most of the White House hopefuls attending a presidential forum hosted Tuesday by the Human Rights Campaign — a leading gay advocacy group — expressed their support for gay civil unions.



Only three candidates — Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio — said federal law should approve same-sex marriages.



The comments of the top candidates did not go over well with some in the crowd. The audience hissed when Sens. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women.



"Marriage has a special status in our culture, our society, our history," Lieberman said.



Despite the differences over gay marriage, the Democratic presidential candidates agree with most of the policy positions of the Human Rights Campaign. They expressed support for anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, increased funding for HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS (news - web sites) research and treatment, and federal domestic partnership benefits.



But the issue of gay marriage is sure to dog the candidates — both the Democrats and Republican President Bush (news - web sites) — in next year's election. Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the group also would invite Bush and other Republicans to future forums.



Several congressional Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Bush has said "marriage is between a man and a woman," but he has sidestepped the constitutional amendment issue.



Vermont is the only state that has a civil-unions law giving gay couples the same legal rights as married couples — a law signed by former Gov. Howard Dean, one of the presidential contenders to address the forum. Dean said civil unions, in the absence of marriage, give gays legal rights, such as health benefits, inheritance, child custody and hospital visitation.



Under tough questioning from moderator Sam Donaldson, Dean said extending marriage to gays is problematic "because marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution."



But Sharpton said simply granting civil unions is a form of discrimination against gays, "like saying we'll give blacks or whites or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry."



Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands, and Canada's Liberal government announced last month that it would enact similar legislation soon. Dean and Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri were asked if they would recognize those marriages if the couples immigrated to the United States. Although Dean did not answer the question directly during an interview last month on NBC's "Meet the Press," he said he had come to the conclusion that they should be recognized.



So did Gephardt. "I think the federal government should conform its laws as quickly as we can to recognize whatever relationship — civil relationship, civil union, gay marriage — whatever is accepted and put into law in states or foreign countries," he said.



Gephardt told the audience about how he and his wife had embraced their daughter, Chrissy, when she announced a year and a half ago that she was leaving her husband because she was a lesbian. He drew applause from the audience when he said he and his wife had joined PFLAG, which stands for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.



Appearing with Gephardt at a news conference following the forum, Chrissy Gephardt gave her father credit for favoring other rights for gay couples even though she disagrees with his position on marriage.



"I've talked to him about it all the time," she said. "I'm definitely a proponent of gay marriages."



Two of the nine presidential candidates, Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Edwards of North Carolina, did not appear at the forum.




story.news.yahoo.com/news...ats_gays_4



Quote:
Democratic Candidates Split on Issue of Gay Marriages

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG



ASHINGTON, July 15 — The issue was gay marriage. The occasion was a candidates' forum, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a group advocating gay rights. And the scene today was a political tap dance, as the leading Democratic presidential contenders struggled to explain how they would extend legal benefits of marriage to gays, without using the M-word itself.



"I don't believe that is a distinction that makes a difference," Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said, declaring himself against gay marriage but in favor of "civil unions" that would allow gays and their partners tax benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation and other rights accorded married people.



Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, took a similar view, as did Howard Dean, who as governor of Vermont three years ago signed the nation's first law allowing same-sex civil unions in a state. Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri also declared himself in the civil unions camp. It was a position that put him at odds with his daughter, Chrissy, a lesbian, who favors gay marriage and who attended the event with her father.



Seven of the nine Democratic presidential candidates attended today's forum. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Senator Bob Graham of Florida did not show up. They said through spokesmen that they opposed gay marriage but supported extending health and other benefits to the domestic partners of gays.



Of the seven in attendance, only the Rev. Al Sharpton and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich supported gay marriage unambiguously.



"That's like asking me, `Do I support black marriage or white marriage,' " Mr. Sharpton said, to thunderous applause, when the moderator, Sam Donaldson of ABC News, asked if he supported gay marriage.



With its recent broad ruling overturning a Texas law banning sodomy and affirming that gays are entitled to a right of privacy, the Supreme Court has put the issue of gay marriage on the political agenda.



Conservative Republicans, including President Bush, have been vocal opponents of gay marriage. Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, recently advocated a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.



At a news briefing today, Dr. Frist reminded reporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed into law.



"The restatement of that," Dr. Frist said, "is that marriage is very simple: a union between one man and one woman, not two men or three men or four men, or one man — or one woman — or two women, three women, or three women and three men. It's not that. It's one man, one woman. It's what the law of the land is. I will support that."



The question of marriage may be trickier for Democrats, who have been strong supporters of equal rights for gays but who do not want to alienate social moderates.



At one point today, Mr. Kerry, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, a year in which he was up for re-election, remarked that "marriage is viewed as a union between men and women." When the remark drew hisses, he interjected, "That is a historical, cultural view." When the crowd hissed again, Mr. Kerry simply shrugged and said, "That's my opinion."




www.nytimes.com/2003/07/1...6DEMS.html



(Requires registration to view)



GG Who's more than confused about whom to choose than ever :confused Out



***************************************



ETA: Good New from All Over!



Quote:
First gay couple to ‘wed’



The first civil union of an homosexual couple in Latin America will take place in the city of Buenos Aires this afternoon. César Cigliutti and Marcelo Suntheim, head and deputy head of the Argentine Homosexual Community (CHA), will unite before the law at 4.30pm and offer “a public toast” in the street to celebrate their decision. The civil union of gay couples was authorized by the Buenos Aires city Legislature a few months ago.




www.buenosairesherald.com...tent=17581



Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/18/03 8:47 pm
Gatito Grande
 


Petition for same-sex marriages

Postby Ginner WTluv » Sun Jul 20, 2003 10:15 am

I was looking around on the web and came across this Petition for same-sex marriages It's a petition for same sex marriages (everything's explained on the site) and they're trying to get a million signitures. I've already signed



~ Jen



Edited by xita to add link:



www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/million

I'd like to take a moment to talk about something that's happened lately. I'm also in love. It's a very special thing and I'm really rather proud of it. Yes, I'm in love with my own breasts. I feel no personal shame about this; in fact, I think this is the one. It's going to last. ~ Ruth

Edited by: xita  at: 7/20/03 10:05 am
Ginner WTluv
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby kajo 2000 » Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:02 am

[Fred Phelps is the "gentleman" who threatened to protest outside BBOvenGuy's local gay-friendly church a while ago.]



From The Advocate:



Quote:
County where Fred Phelps resides bans antigay discrimination

Wednesday, July 23, 2003



In Shawnee County, Kan., home of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church and its antigay pastor, Fred Phelps, commissioners on Monday unanimously approved a ban on discrimination in county employment based on sexual orientation. The commission heard more than an hour of testimony from people on both sides of the issue, including accusations from opponents that the ban would create a protected class for gays and lesbians. Commission chairman Vic Miller said he decided to introduce the policy after the U.S. Supreme Court threw out state sodomy laws such as one on the books in Kansas. He said he had been reluctant to introduce the matter while the state had a law making gay sex illegal, even in the privacy of the home. Miller said there was a misunderstanding about the extent of the county resolution, which he said carried much less weight than a similar-sounding measure the Topeka city council debated last year.



There was no official response from Phelps or his followers after approval of the policy. But in a letter to commissioners prior to its passage, Phelps said, "Homosexuals are not a legitimate class either needing or deserving such protection. They define themselves only by their deviant sexual conduct."




---------

"I want to be Byron... because I want to date young boys." Amber Benson

kajo 2000
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby TemperedCynic » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:06 pm

Ah, Fred Phelps. Minnesota loves when he comes to town - we pull together so much, as expressed here . I've heard from others that Fred hates coming here. Good.



And in the spirit of "anyone dog can change his spots" category, I offer this tidbit from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune . And, I agree, this old dog Rep. Lindner will never change his spots. Still the photo op should be interesting.


More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

TemperedCynic
 


Stop the presses! Tom DeLay outraged by anti-gay slurs!

Postby Gatito Grande » Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:07 pm

Y'know, the following would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically cynical: Uber-conservative, arch-homophobe Tom DeLay, the second-most (if not more) powerful Republican leader in the House of Representatives, getting his dander all up because of a Democrat's (stupid, but silly) "remarks against homosexuals"?! :eek



Quote:
Republican Bill Thomas -- chairman of the House's most powerful committee . . . stood by his move to call the House sergeant at arms to quell the disturbance caused in the main committee by Stark, D-Fremont.



Stark, who had remained behind to stall for time, had made a snide comment about Thomas' intellect and dared Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., to fight, calling him a "little fruitcake" and a "little wimp." Stark later apologized . . .



On Tuesday, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, lashed out at Stark's language, implying that it was anti-gay[:] "The intolerant comments made by Pete Stark I find incredibly offensive, and I am shocked that the media hasn't treated him like they treat others that make these kinds of remarks," DeLay said. "He's made remarks now against homosexuals, and yet he's more or less allowed to get away with these kinds of inflammatory displays that he is so famous for."






(Edited, from www.smirkingchimp.com/pri...?sid=12367 )



Oh, Tom I'm so moved that you care! :lol Like maybe you'll support same-sex marriage next? Gay adoption?



Seriously, this just goes to show that there is no level of craven hypocrisy to which Right Wing yahoos won't sink. :mad



GG Out the door in 2004! :pride Out



Gatito Grande
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby tyche » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:10 pm

Two pieces of good news:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...268035.DTL

Quote:
Gay marriage gaining favor, poll shows



New York Times Friday, July 25, 2003



Washington -- Opposition to gay marriage has dropped significantly among Americans in recent years, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.



In the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they opposed gay marriages, while 38 percent said they backed them. In 1996, 65 percent said they opposed such marriages, while 27 percent favored the idea.



The new survey, which focused on the impact of religion on politics, found what the center called a "growing gap in opinion on this issue along racial and religious lines."



White evangelical Protestants were the most firmly opposed to the idea of gay marriage: 83 percent said they opposed it; 84 percent opposed it in 1996. Opposition among blacks also remained essentially unchanged, with 64 percent opposing gay marriages today, and 65 percent opposing the idea in 1996.



In contrast, white Roman Catholics and white mainline Protestants have become increasingly open to the idea, according to the poll, which was conducted June 24 to July 8 among 2,002 adults. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.




And the California Senate has voted to outlaw discrimination against transsexuals:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...253543.DTL

Quote:
Senate OKs 'gender identity' bill

It bans discrimination against transsexuals




Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, July 25, 2003



A divided state Senate voted along party lines Thursday for a bill banning discrimination against people whose "gender identity" is different from their biological sex at birth.



Assembly Bill 196, if signed by the governor, would provide sweeping new rights to transsexuals. It was approved 23-11 with six senators either not voting or not present.



"This bill will help ensure that all Californians, regardless of their gender, are protected from discrimination . . . and, hopefully, treated with the respect and dignity all individuals deserve," said Assemblyman Mark Leno, the San Francisco Democrat who was author of the legislation.



The Assembly approved it in April by a vote of 41-34, the minimum needed to pass.



The bill would outlaw housing and job discrimination against people whose "perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual's sex at birth."



The bill would amend the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act by adding the language "gender identity or expression" to the existing prohibition of sex discrimination.



Supporters said the bill would clarify legal decisions in California that already interpret laws prohibiting bias based on gender identity or expression.



"This is a simple matter of civil rights," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, who shepherded the bill in the Senate. "California law already protects against hate crimes based on gender stereotyping. . . . A person's gender identity has nothing to do with their ability to pay rent or to act as a competent employee, and we should not tolerate such arbitrary discrimination. "



If the bill is signed into law, California would join New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota in offering such protections.



The bill has been opposed by some conservative religious groups on ideological grounds and by business organizations, which fear it could lead to lawsuits.



But a list of 50 groups supporting the bill includes churches, unions, civil rights organizations and some business groups, including the California Apartment Association.














tyche
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Ben Varkentine » Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:34 pm

Some smart stuff in writer Mark Evanier's blog about Bill "Mr. moral authority" Bennett's comments re the supreme court ruling.



www.newsfromme.com/

Ben Varkentine
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Gatito Grande » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:26 pm

Thanks for the link, Ben. Did you catch this?



Quote:
TIM RUSSERT: The United States Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law against sodomy should be struck down. That sex between consenting adults of the same sex should not be illegal. Canada now says that gay couples should be married. Is gay marriage in the United States of America inevitable?




"Canada now says that gay couples should be married"???



No, no, that's their mothers who say that! :lol



GG What will finally bring gays and straights together: mother-in-law jokes! :p Out



************************************************************************************************************

ETA: Yet More Good News :pride



Quote:
A First at Bride's Magazine: A Report on Same-Sex Unions

By BILL WERDE





After 70 years of helping brides walk down the aisle, Condé Nast's Bride's magazine has crossed a threshold of its own. Its September-October issue, on newsstands now, contains a full-page article on same-sex weddings. This is the first time that any of the five top-selling bridal magazines has published such a feature.



The article, titled "Outward Bound" and written by David Toussaint, a freelance journalist, discusses recent developments in same-sex ceremonies. Gay and lesbian couples are interviewed about why they want their friends and community to recognize their unions publicly. The article also offers advice on how to be a good guest. It urges readers "not to panic" if they are invited to a gay wedding.



Bride's, established in 1934, is the oldest and largest of the national wedding magazines, with a circulation of 402,897, according to the most recent data from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. The story was discussed at an editorial meeting in December and was assigned after some discussion of whether the topic was appropriate for Bride's readers.



"We looked at what was happening in the wedding industry," says Millie Martini Bratten, the magazine's editor in chief and the editorial director of Condé Nast's Bridal Group.



"We were hearing from various retailers that same-sex couples had become an important part of their gift registries," Ms. Bratten said. "And we were answering more readers' questions: `If two women were getting married, what's the appropriate attire?' " She also noted that The New York Times and other newspapers had begun publishing notices of same-sex ceremonies.



Cathy Renna, news media director for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said every such article is an important step. "Maybe a cynical person would say they just want our business," Ms. Renna said. "But if you want to have a wedding, these are the publications you'll read. A story like this really energizes the gay and lesbian community."



Same-sex ceremonies have been covered for some time on Internet wedding sites. "Wow, they finally caught up," said Carley Roney, editor in chief and a co-founder of one such site, TheKnot.com, which claims more than two million visitors a month. The Knot has covered same-sex weddings since it began operating in 1997.



In 1999, TheKnot.com ran a contest called "Millennial Couple," which attracted almost 5,000 entries. The winning couple — determined by votes from visitors to the site — was Kimberly Acquaviva and Kimberly McGannon, who came to be called "The two Kimmies." "We experienced a little bit of a backlash at the time," Ms. Roney said. "We have 15- or 20,000 local vendor relationships around the country, and this wasn't looked upon terribly kindly in the Bible Belt."



Editors at more than one national bridal magazine said that they also were considering articles on same-sex weddings, but added that business concerns remained a factor. So far, Condé Nast reports no adverse advertising reaction. Nina Lawrence, vice president and publisher of the Condé Nast Bridal Group, said she had not heard any complaints from her advertisers.



Ms. Lawrence noted that Bride's was trying to address generational changes in weddings and marriage ceremonies. The generation that is getting married now "is the most inclusive generation ever," she said. "If we were creating a product for people who were getting married 20 years ago, we'd be out of business."



Mr. Toussaint has written several articles for Bride's before but was overwhelmed by the responses he received while he was working on his same-sex marriage report.



"Anyone involved, they all called me back immediately and were thrilled," Mr. Toussaint said. "One gay couple, two men I interviewed, said they would buy every issue of Bride's on the newsstand. I think that's hysterical. It's every bride's dream to be in Bride's."




www.nytimes.com/2003/07/2...ner=GOOGLE



(Must be registered to view)



I checked Brides.com, the mag's website, but unfortunately the article is not posted



Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/28/03 8:13 pm
Gatito Grande
 


First Gay School

Postby T Maclay » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:29 am





Came across this news articale story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030728/ts_alt_afp/us_gays_school_030728200008



Quote:
New York to open first gay high school in US

Mon Jul 28, 4:00 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!







NEW YORK (AFP) - New York City is set to open the first US full-fledged publicly funded high school specifically for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender pupils, official said.





AFP/File Photo







The Harvey Milk High School officially opens as a public school in September with a roll call of around 100 students, and aims to bring that number up to 170 by the following year.





"Everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools and this lets them get an education without having to worry," Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters at his daily briefing.





The school has been operating unofficially for nearly two decades as a small alternative programme with just two classrooms.





The first principal of the school, which is named after a gay former San Francisco county supervisor assassinated in 1978, will be a former Wall Street executive, William Salzman.





"This school will be a model for the country and possibly the world," Salzman said in an interview with the New York Post.





"This is not a touchy-feely situation," Salzman said. "We intend to have 95 percent of our students go on to college."





The school, located in downtown Manhattan, is currently undergoing a 3.2-million-dollar, city-funded face-lift.





Conservative groups have denounced the school's creation as "social engineering" and a waste of taxpayers' money.












T Maclay
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Amymlc » Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:42 am

This just pisses me off!! Separation is NOT Equal!! This is segregation all over again. Instead they should be making ALL schools safe for all students!! And what about the kids that can't say "Mom, I'd like to go to the GAY highschool"...UGH.

:rage

Amymlc
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Amymlc » Tue Jul 29, 2003 11:46 am

GROSS!! -- A guide for Catholic politicians??? Separation of Church and

State--An Urban Legend, apparently.



Anyway, here is the article....





July 28, 2003 02:10 PM EDT





VATICAN CITY - The Vatican is seeking to enlist politicians and worldwide

public opinion in its campaign against gay marriages, alarmed by growing

legal acceptance of same-sex unions in Europe and North America.



Instructions, calling on politicians to oppose extending rights granted to

traditional couples, are in a document prepared by the Church's guardian of

orthodoxy, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican

officials said Monday.



The document - "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal

Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons" - will be released

Thursday, the Vatican said.



A Vatican official familiar with the document called it a "practical

reflection" for both Catholic and non-Catholic politicians and public

opinion in general.



"It asks that the legal recognition accorded the traditional marriages not

be extended to same-sex unions," the official told The Associated Press,

speaking on condition of anonymity.



Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials have been speaking out for

months against legislative proposals to legalize same-sex marriages.



It is not the only Christian denomination embroiled in the debate.



At their national convention, which begins Wednesday in Minneapolis,

Minnesota, the Episcopal Church in the United States will decide whether to

approve same-sex unions and openly gay clergy, issues sharply dividing the

church.



Catholic teaching says homosexuals must not be subjected to "unjust

discrimination" but should be chaste.



In January, the pope approved guidelines for Catholic politicians that said

church opposition to abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage was not up

for negotiation.



It said laws safeguarding marriage between man and woman must be promoted

and that "in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on same level

as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such."



Legal acceptance is growing.



Two Canadian provinces - Ontario and British Columbia - have legalized

homosexual marriage under recent court rulings, a move that has attracted

gays from across the border in the United States.



The Massachusetts supreme court is weighing whether to legalize same-sex

unions.



Some Republican lawmakers in Washington are calling for a constitutional

amendment that would ban gay marriages nationwide.



Earlier this month, a top German cardinal condemned Germany's same-sex

marriage law after it was upheld by the country's supreme court, calling it

a blow to the family.



"Now the associations of homosexuals have a potent arm to obtain further

concessions on the road toward full equality with married couples,

including the right to adoption," Cardinal Karl Lehman complained in a

Vatican Radio interview.



The Vatican is particularly worried about the waning influence of the

church in Europe. Drafters of a proposed constitution for the European

Union ignored Vatican requests to include explicit mention of Europe's

Christian roots.



On Sunday, the pope lamented that the church's message was being watered

down in Europe, decrying the spread of a "vague and little-demanding

religious sentiment, which could become agnosticism and practical atheism."



Vatican officials said the document - 12 pages long and available in seven

languages - is devoted entirely to the issue of same-sex marriages.



A leading gay activist in Italy, Franco Grillini, who is a member of

parliament, condemned the Vatican's position as "another intrusion into a

country's affairs."



He charged that the Vatican operated with a particularly heavy hand in

Italy and several other predominantly Catholic countries in Europe,

depriving gays of rights guaranteed elsewhere.

Amymlc
 


Gay-Themed TV Gains a Wider Audience

Postby Ben Varkentine » Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:50 pm

Cool article in today's NY Times.



Gay-Themed TV Gains a Wider Audience

By BERNARD WEINRAUB and JIM RUTENBERG





Thirty years ago, prime-time television series often depicted homosexuals as suicidal or psychopaths. In an episode of "Marcus Welby, M.D.," the doctor tells a tormented patient to "win that fight" against his homosexual feelings. An episode of "Police Woman" centered on three lesbians who murdered the residents of a retirement home.



If American television audiences could have seen then what viewers can see now.



Tonight the Bravo cable network will present the first episode of "Boy Meets Boy," in which a gay bachelor will choose a potential partner from a field of 15 men, some of them straight.



That will be followed by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," in which a team of gay men with expertise in designer clothing, food and wine, and in the arts save aesthetically challenged straight men from their own warped senses of fashion.



These shows join a growing prime-time roster of gay-themed programming — "Queer as Folk" on Showtime, "Will and Grace" on NBC — that reflects a major shift in attitudes about gay subjects. Several network and cable television executives said the Supreme Court's 6-to-3 decision in June, overruling a Texas sodomy law and legalizing gay sexual conduct, underlined what they already knew: that the nation's attitudes toward gays and lesbians are radically changing.



"Finally, television is catching up with society at large," said Max Mutchnick, the co-creator with David Kohan of "Will and Grace," "These new gay shows are a reflection of what everyone sees now in their jobs, in their families, in their schools."



But the trend has already come under attack. A. William Merrell, a vice president on the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, said the new shows were a sign of the growing influence of gays in Hollywood. "I believe that the net effect is to forward an agenda making homosexuality appear first normal, and then desirable," he said.



At the same time, some scholars and writers specializing in gay issues said the current crop of gay-oriented shows served only to trivialize and stereotype gay men.



In many ways the new shows are trying to capitalize on the popularity of "Will and Grace," which was the third-most-watched sitcom on network television last season behind "Friends" and "Everybody Loves Raymond," with an average weekly audience of 16.8 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research.



The shows are also a measure of the hunger among television executives to offer new, even daring shows in a highly competitive industry.



Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, the executive producers of "It's All Relative," a new ABC sitcom about a star-crossed engaged couple — the daughter of two upscale gay men and the son of a blue-collar couple — said the television landscape had shifted significantly in the eight and a half years since their first gay-themed television project, the NBC movie "Serving in Silence." The movie was based on the story of Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer, the officer discharged from the Washington State National Guard in 1992 for acknowledging she was a lesbian. (She was later reinstated.) "It was a really difficult experience," Mr. Zadan said.



Sponsors chafed at the movie — some refused to advertise — some conservatives protested and even some of NBC's affiliated stations expressed discomfort with a kiss shared by the movie's stars, Glenn Close and Judy Davis.



"Look where we've come now, where the opposite has happened, where the chairman of ABC comes to us two years ago and says, `I want to do a show on gay parents," Mr. Zadan said.



Lloyd Braun, the ABC Entertainment chairman, said that when he came up with the idea for "It's All Relative," "I just thought it was funny," he said.



The sitcom, he said, seeks to discuss "some of the ridiculous stereotypes that exist in our society." For the last two and a half years, Showtime has offered "Queer as Folk," a fairly explicit portrait of a group of gay men and women in Pittsburgh. Next January, Showtime will present an original series, "The L Word," about the lives of a group of lesbians in Los Angeles.



Then there is "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" on Bravo. It has won good-natured reviews from critics for its universal theme: Who doesn't want to be made over to look better?



The show drew roughly 1.6 million viewers on its first two outings on Bravo in July, the largest audiences in Bravo's history. After that success, NBC, Bravo's corporate sibling, decided to broadcast the show itself last Thursday, a rare instance of a broadcast network following cable's lead.



The show drew an audience of 7 million and was the second-highest-rated show in NBC's Thursday 9:30 p.m. slot since mid-June.



The program did not seem to want for advertisers, either.



"Advertisers have gotten past the point of resistance," said Jack Myers, editor of the Jack Myers Report, a media industry newsletter heavily subscribed to on Madison Avenue. "If audience is there, the advertisers are there," he said.



Still, the broadcast of "Queer Eye" did not go off without a hitch. One NBC affiliate, WAGT in Augusta, Ga., refused to show the episode until 2:35 a.m.



John Mann, the station's president and general manager, said he did not object to the gay theme but rather to scenes that he believed crossed the line of decency with blunt sexual innuendo.



"If that appeared in `Friends,' and we knew about it in advance, we would have moved it, too," Mr. Mann said.



"Queer Eye" has offended some people. In his weekly opinion column earlier this month, L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, called it "The Gay Supremacy Hour."



Such programming "may be acceptable for that element in our culture that's already earning an advanced degree in Sin Acceptance," he wrote. "But it's also acceptable to the gang at NBC, and the suits upstairs at General Electric?"



For different reasons, some scholars who have explored gay life and issues are not entirely pleased at the new phenomenon, either. One is Martin Duberman, professor of history at the City University of New York and author of "Stonewall," about the June 1969 uprising that helped give birth to the gay rights movement.



"You're not seeing diverse images on these shows," he said. "You're seeing primarily middle-class white men with a lot of discretionary income. Well, a lot of gay people are poor, a lot are working class. These people are not seen on these shows."



Eric Marcus, the author of several books on gay issues, including "Making Gay History: The Half-Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Rights," said: " `Will and Grace' was a breakthrough. People love it. But it's as demeaning to gay people as heterosexual sitcoms are to heterosexuals. It's so painfully clichéd."



Mr. Mutchnick, the co-creator of "Will and Grace," expressed anger and frustration at such criticisms. "I don't think it's our job to write about the hardships of life in this format," he said. "While I don't want to suggest that the plight of, say, breast cancer patients isn't important, I don't think the audience sitting down to an episode of `Murphy Brown' wanted to hear that."



Randy Barbato, a filmmaker who, with his partner, Fenton Bailey, created a documentary, "Gay Hollywood," about a group of five gay men in Hollywood, to be broadcast on AMC on Aug. 11 at 10 p.m., said: "There are a few visible stereotypes right now. That'll open the door for different kinds of characters."





Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 7/29/03 2:00 pm
Ben Varkentine
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby tyche » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:19 pm

Depressing news: a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll seems to indicate an anti-gay backlash since the Supreme Court decision:

Quote:
usatoday.printthis.clicka...nerID=1660

Poll shows backlash on gay issues

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Americans have become significantly less accepting of homosexuality since a Supreme Court decision that was hailed as clearing the way for new gay civil rights, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has found. After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s.

Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48% said yes; 46% said no. Before this month, support hadn't been that low since 1996. (Related item: See poll numbers)

In early May, support for legal relations reached a high of 60%-35%.

The shift in attitudes occurs as gay issues have been in the news. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a Canadian court decision allowed gay couples to marry in Ontario, and Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.

Conservative social activists see a backlash to those developments and the growing visibility of gay characters in entertainment, including such TV shows as Will & Grace. "The more that the movement demands the endorsement of the law and the culture, the more resistance there will be," says Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

Bauer says that sentiment will make it harder for elected officials to avoid taking positions on such questions as a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar marriage of gay couples.

Advocates for gay men and lesbians called the poll disappointing. "Clearly, the debate (over recent developments) has had an effect," says David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign. But over time, he says, "The country always ends up on the side of fairness, and I think they will here, too."

Those making the biggest shifts included African-Americans. On whether homosexual relations should be legal, their support fell from 58% in May to 36% in July. Among people who attend church almost every week, support fell from 61% to 49%.

The survey also found rising opposition to civil unions that would give gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals. They were opposed 57%-40%, the most opposition since the question was first asked in 2000.

By 49%-46%, those polled said homosexuality should not be considered "an acceptable alternative lifestyle." It was the first time since 1997 that more people expressed opposition than support.


tyche
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design