GLBT News

[tyche]

Quote:

---

www.tennessean.com/local/...D=45285016

Court: OK to shield boy from dad’s gay lifestyle

By CHRISTIAN BOTTORFF

Staff Writer

and MATT GOURAS

A gay father can't flaunt a homosexual lifestyle when his son is around, a state appeals court has ruled. But the state Court of Appeals, in a decision released Tuesday, said a Williamson County judge was wrong to send Joe Hogue, a producer in the Christian music industry, to jail for telling his son about being gay. The appellate ruling said Hogue had not gone beyond reasonable boundaries.

Hogue said last night that he had just learned of the outcome, but had anticipated it. He said he had been confident the jail sentence would be overturned.

''The whole thing was based on, really, no common sense,'' he said when reached by telephone. ''It was based on a restraining order that didn't make sense, which made it unconstitutional.''

As part of a divorce hearing, Chancery Court Judge R.E. Lee Davies had barred Hogue from ''taking the child around or otherwise exposing the child to his gay lover(s) and/or his gay lifestyle.'' The court then slapped Hogue with a contempt-of-court ruling for telling his son he was gay.

Hogue appealed, saying the restraining order on his lifestyle was illegal, overly broad and had expired by the time he told his son he was gay.

The case dates to February 2002, when Cher Lynn Hogue filed for divorce, saying her husband had left the home to pursue a gay lifestyle. A divorce court, in a temporary restraining order, agreed with her that the couple's son, who was 9 at the time, should not be exposed to that lifestyle.

Later that year she said her husband had allowed the child to be in the presence of a gay lover at his home and in church.

A complaint filed by the wife's attorney said Joe Hogue told the boy that ''when someone is gay, they are born like that.'' He told his son that he was old enough to understand, and that his boyfriend was in love with him, according to the complaint.

Hogue was sentenced to two days in Williamson County Jail in September 2002 for breaking the restraining order. The lower court also took away some of his visitation rights.

The appeals court said it found nothing wrong with the lower court's shielding the child from the gay lifestyle. But in the panel's seven-page decision, Judge Frank Clement Jr. said the father had acted reasonably by simply telling his son he was gay.

Clement wrote that the restraining order wasn't specific enough for the father to know he was barred from telling his son about his sexual orientation.

''We do not read the restraining order to prohibit a statement by the father that he is gay,'' Clement wrote. ''Thus, husband did not have notice that he was prohibited from telling his son he was gay and therefore cannot be held in contempt for doing so.''

The lower court did nothing wrong by taking a counselor's advice to protect the child from the gay lifestyle and using a restraining order to do so, the appeals court found. Hogue said last night he thought it was necessary to tell his son about his sexual orientation. The boy had started asking him tough questions and was even fearing him, confiding that others were saying his soul was destined for damnation, Hogue said. He said he felt he needed to clear the air.

Hogue, who has worked with well-known Christian contemporary artists such as DC Talk and Michael McDonald, said he now finds it harder to find work in the Christian music industry, with its large base in Nashville and Williamson County, and he doubts that's a coincidence. Some Christian artists still work with him, although others have fallen out of touch, he said. Since his divorce and the public case about his sexual orientation, he said, he is ''trying to be an honest guy, and I'm still a Christian and still listen to Christian music. It's hard for people to accept something they can't understand. They don't.

''We are in the belt buckle of the Bible Belt, and it was tough. I used to eat lunch once a week with my son at school. But everyone kind of hated me all of a sudden.''

Hogue says he has had to adapt by taking on more pop acts and relying on his other projects, such as producing theme music for local television stations and larger national projects.

His heart remains in Christian music, the type he knows, loves and continues to appreciate, he added.

''I'm still doing some Christian work, but I would love to do more. But that is kind of an uphill battle. It's getting better than it used to be.''

---

[Kieli]

*sigh* So much for that "Love thy Neighbor", christian tolerance, "God loves us all" kinda mantra. And people wonder why organized religion gives me burrs in my undies

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Yelowsub]

Kieli- Thank you very much. Yeah I will admit that I laughed outloud when my Mom tried to make that comparison and I tried to explain the difference to her, but she kept on saying "well just for argument's sake...". That's why I was looking for concrete things and examples to give to her, besides my "What in the world are you talking about!?"



Thanks Again

"Trying to talk about love is like trying to dance about architecture."

[Gatito Grande]

Well, Kieli, remember that there's religion and there's true religion



GG I'm not a member of an organized religion: I'm a Queer-Lovin' Episcopalian! Out

[Diebrock]

From LA Weekly

Quote:

---

Exiled by Love

Immigration law snubs gay partners

by Jenny Hontz



Christine Avramov, a 28-year-old from Riverside, and Jessica, a 21-year-old from Luxembourg, fell madly in love by e-mail during the summer of 2001. After Jessica surprised Christine with a visit to Los Angeles for her birthday that fall, they knew their long-distance romance wasn’t enough. “I was driving her back to LAX, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go. I want to stay on,’” Christine recalled.



Jessica applied for a student visa and enrolled in law school the following January. A month later, they registered as domestic partners to make their union official. But the happy life they hoped for has turned into a quagmire worthy of Kafka. Jessica’s visa has been denied twice. She’s appealing the decision, but any day now the government could tell her to leave. “We had a home, and now it’s threatened,” Christine said. “People think if you live in L.A., you shouldn’t worry. Hello, the INS can come pull you out of your house if they feel like it. That’s scary. They can just come in and ruin your life.”



While California law grants many of the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners, federal immigration law denies bi-national, same-sex couples the most basic and fundamental right to live together in the United States.



If Jessica and Christine were straight, they could fly to Las Vegas to marry, and the next day Jessica would be eligible to work and reside here permanently. Instead, as a lesbian couple with no right to marry, they’ve exhausted their legal options, and they’re giving up on the United States to move to Canada.



“We’re going to be refugees,” said Jessica, who withheld her last name, fearing the government will deport her before the Canadian paperwork is approved. “When I first came to the U.S., I had all these ideas about what this country represents — equality and human rights. It’s not at all like that. It’s in the Constitution, yet it doesn’t mean anything if you’re gay.”



Refugees from the United States, Jessica and Christine are hardly alone. Thousands of bi-national gay couples are forced into exile in order to stay together. Though 15 countries recognize same-sex partners for immigration purposes, the United States lags behind most of the civilized world, including South Africa and Israel. One Angeleno recently fled with his lover to China.



In response to its landmark Supreme Court decision two months ago, Massachusetts is expected to become the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage. But even if that happens, federal law defines marriage strictly as the union between one man and one woman, preventing even legally married gay Americans from sponsoring their foreign-born spouses as family members.



“There are no immigration benefits available to [gays] based on their relationship,” said Chris Bentley, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizen and Immigration Services. “With that said, there’s certainly



nothing that says a U.S. citizen cannot move to another country.”



So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The message from the government to gays is clear: Pursue your happiness elsewhere. It’s your country or your love. “What an embarrassment,” Christine said. “Nobody should have to leave their country. It’s outright discrimination.”







Congress has introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would end this immigration inequity. Ten senators, including Senator Barbara Boxer, and 120 representatives have signed on as co-sponsors, but the chances of passage while Republicans control all three branches of government are slim.



“I think the immigration issue, unfortunately, is a difficult one to be working on since 9/11,” said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign. “It will take a long time to pass a piece of legislation like this. It will take years.”



Los Angeles performance artist Tim Miller, one of the “NEA Four,” fell in love with his Australian-born partner about a decade ago and has made this issue his cause célèbre. Sharing his personal struggle in his performances, he hopes to wake up the gay community and shame fair-minded straight people into taking a stand.



“If you’re in a bi-national gay relationship, you really realize you’re not worth shit in this country,” he said. “For a straight American to get married is every bit as immoral as eating at a restaurant that doesn’t serve black people.”



But with gay marriage a top “cultural wedge issue” in the next presidential election, Miller finds it hard to be optimistic about the prospects for political change. Gays and immigrants are the two groups the Republican Party “loves to bash,” he said. “You mix those together, it’s a right-winger’s wet dream.”



For now, many gay immigrants are applying for temporary tourist or work visas as a stopgap. But when those run out, usually in three months to six years, couples face wrenching and dehumanizing choices: Move out, break up, or break the law.



The fear and uncertainty of impermanence inflict a level of psychological violence that can test the strongest of relationships. Sham marriages are an option, but they carry the risk of stiff fines and deportation. Those who stay illegally can never return home to visit family again.



That’s just the decision that Freddie, 30, a Parisian, made in October, when his tourist visa expired. He chose to stay illegally with his partner, Nick, 40, an ad salesman for the Los Angeles Times, in their Silver Lake home.



Holding hands like newlyweds in a West Hollywood restaurant, this model-handsome couple, who asked that their last names not be used, recounted tales of their initial meeting in Paris in the summer of 2002, their romance and trips home to meet the parents. “My dad called me the next day and he says, ‘Nick, that Freddie, he’s the one.’ They just loved him.”



The two of them hired a high-profile immigration attorney and tried to find a way for Freddie to stay, but they learned they had no viable legal options. Instead, they’re taking their chances, living with the terror of sudden separation.



“I wake up in the middle of the night freaking out the love of my life sleeping next to me will be pulled out,” Nick said. “I’m a good person,” Freddie added. “I’m not doing anything bad. Now, every single day, I think where will I sleep tonight — in prison or on a plane back?”



Freddie considered marrying an American woman, but “that goes in the face of everything we’re fighting for,” Nick said. “We’re being true to our love. We’re trying to answer to the higher laws.” Still, civil disobedience presents dilemmas. Freddie’s father is sick from an accident a few months ago, but “I can’t leave,” Freddie said. “If I need to fly to him, I will do it, but I will not be able to fly back.”







Neither Nick nor Freddie was particularly political before their predicament, but when they realized most of their friends — gay and straight — were ignorant of the laws, they joined Immigration Equality, a Los Angeles support, education and advocacy group for same-sex bi-national couples.



With 300 couples on the group’s e-mail network, 20 or so meet every month and share “gut-wrenching stories about being separated and being in fear,” said board member Sophie Fanelli, 29, a civil rights activist from France, who has been in a relationship with Los Angeles teacher Molly Sides, 29, for five years.



Sophie and Molly own a house together in Mount Washington and would like to have kids, but their situation is “just not stable enough,” Sophie said. Because she is only here on a temporary work visa, she has had to endure three separations from Molly for as long as five and a half months while she returned to France waiting for paperwork to arrive.



“I look at it as a tragedy,” Sophie said. “At this point, I’m not here permanently. I don’t have a green card. I can’t get legally married.”



She hopes to eventually secure permanent status through her job, but the process is extremely difficult, the standards are stringent, and the number of employer-sponsored green cards granted is very small. Given the uncertainty, the two are hedging their bets and applying for residency in Canada, where they would have to “start from scratch,” Sophie said.



Because the guiding principle of immigration law is family reunification, the vast majority — 65 percent to 75 percent — of green cards go to those with family already in the United States. But as long as the U.S. government doesn’t consider same-sex partners family, “For us, it’s family separation,” Sophie said.



Sophie can no longer bear to attend weddings because “It makes me so incredibly depressed,” she said. “We’ve been together five years. We have a house. For all intents and purposes, we are a couple. It makes no sense to me.”



Molly and Sophie got involved with Immigra-tion Equality because “Lots of our friends in the gay community really didn’t get it,” Sophie said. “It felt really lonely.”



Occasionally, the group is bolstered by a victory in its ranks. Doug Haxall, 39, a Web engineer from South Pasadena and Immigration Equality board member, spent more than $10,000 on legal and education fees for his partner of five years, Marco, 29, from Brazil, who was not allowed to work or drive in the United States. They waited more than two years for Marco’s student-visa approval.



“They basically leave you hanging for an ungodly period of time,” Haxall said. “You’re in limbo. You have no rights, and they make you sweat it out.” Marco finally got fed up and decided to apply for asylum. The government was receptive to his claims of persecution in Brazil and granted his request.



“That was an emotional day,” Haxall said. “When your partner is granted the right to stay, your whole life changes in a second. Now we really are permanent partners.”



Haxall got the good news at the office, and his boss took the whole team out for martinis. But the celebration was tempered by the fact that so many of his friends from Immigration Equality haven’t had a positive outcome.



“We’re two guys who got lucky in a group of 300 people who are not lucky,” he said. “When [the Permanent Partners Immigration Act] passes, that’ll be the party. We’re going to keep fighting for this thing. The right to live together is all we’re asking for.”

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

See now this is depressing. How can other Americans not see that THIS is the image that we're giving off to the rest of the world...that there is this lie the US is giving to the rest of the world and that we're not really a free, loving country where anyone can live in peace and free from the harrassment of government. I mean, what the hell good is it to have a supposed "democracy" when even some of our own citizens are leaving to go somewhere else to live like they want? I'm gnashing my teeth...how bad is that?

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

But hey, what right have we to complain? After all

Quote:

---

said Chris Bentley, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizen and Immigration Services. “there’s certainly nothing that says a U.S. citizen cannot move to another country.”

---

Wouldn't ya just love to drop Chris Bentley on a desert island, a world away from his significant other? B*stard.



Still, one thing gives me hope:

Quote:

---

Holding hands like newlyweds in a West Hollywood restaurant, this model-handsome couple, who asked that their last names not be used, recounted tales of their initial meeting in Paris in the summer of 2002, their romance and trips home to meet the parents. “My dad called me the next day and he says, ‘Nick, that Freddie, he’s the one.’ They just loved him.”

---

Awww.



GG With enough dads like Nick's, we'll change the f-in' law. Out

[MadeinNZ]

Right up front I need to apologise for being so childish and annoying in such a serious thread. But hey, its what I do.

Quote:

---

And people wonder why organized religion gives me burrs in my undies

---

Wait Toni. This is bad? I would have thought most undie action was good.



And I'm done.

"Oh! I know this one: "Slaying entails certain sacrifices... blah blah bity blah. I'm so stuffy, give me a scone."

"It's as if you know me." -- Buffy and Giles

Edited by: MadeinNZ at: 1/11/04 1:02 pm

[Kieli]

*giggles helplessly* Now really only Nicky could be this cute and get away with it.



Religious undie action is....well.....bleh...no fun...all vanilla and no spice. I think I might rename myself as Undie Spice

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[maudmac]

Plus, well...burrs...OUCH!



Unless "burrs" are very different in Antipodea from the way they are here...



*waves to The Stranger Beast*



Toni, you have spicy undies? I think there's a treatment for that...



Never mind me.



Here's some news:

Quote:

---

Conservatives Denounce Anti-Gay Amendment In New Ad Campaign





by Paul Johnson

365Gay.com Newscenter

Washington Bureau Chief



Posted: January 11, 2004 5:01 p.m. ET





(Washington, D.C.) A radio and newspaper ad campaign targeting conservative Republicans is using some of the nation's most outspoken conservatives to condemn the proposed amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage.



The ads quote George Will, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson and former Georgia GOP Rep. Bob Barr, among others. Barr was the author of the federal Defense of Marriage law that already bans gay marriage. Will is a well-known columnist.



The $350,000 advertising campaign is jointly sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Citizen Outreach and will run in 12 cities across the country during conservative talk shows, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Dr. Laura as well as in local papers.



"Think it's conservative to amend the Constitution to ban marriage for gay and lesbian couples? Plenty of conservatives across American don't," the ads say.



"They believe that, even if you oppose gay marriage, you don't amend the Constitution to deal with every controversial social issue. And you definitely don't amend the Constitution to give more power to the federal government," the commercial continues.



"It's why conservative former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson says the Constitutional amendment 'minimizes the Constitution.' Conservative columnist George Will calls the Federal Marriage Amendment 'a misuse of fundamental law.' And conservative former Congressman Bob Barr - the man who wrote the Defense of Marriage Act - calls a Constitutional Amendment 'needlessly intrusive and punitive.'



"Real conservatives agree: be conservative with the Constitution - don't amend it. Call your Representative and Senators at 1-877-762-8762. Tell them to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment."



The campaign will run in 12 traditionally conservative centers: Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Little Rock, Ark., Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Omaha, Neb., Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and Tampa, Fla.



"While some may think of HRC as a liberal organization, we are truly bipartisan," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. "And on this issue we share common ground with many conservatives and moderates. This ad campaign will show that people of all political stripes see this amendment for what it is - a divisive and reckless use of our Constitution."



According to a December 2003 National Annenberg Election Survey, 51 percent of the public opposes such an amendment; 42 percent support. A Gallup poll in December also shows that among all the issues Americans intend to vote on in the upcoming elections, denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples ranks dead last among a list of priorities. Terrorism, the economy and controlling federal spending all ranked significantly higher than policies toward gays and lesbians.



©365Gay.com® 2004

---

Look at that. The HRC is in bed with the author of DOMA.

---

go         donut           go

[Gatito Grande]

Las Vegas is conservative? Yeah, Brittney Spears demonstrated just how much *that* town wants to "defend marriage"! Miami? (Hello, South Beach?) Philadelphia? (Home of the "Freedom" Sir Elton sang about? I wonder about Minneapolis and Milwaukee, too). Oh well: I guess they've focus-group tested for these places (but where's Alabama? South Carolina?)



George Will and especially Alan Simpson don't really surprise me (Simpson's of that Western libertarian bent), but Bob Barr is a pleasant surprise. I wonder how much of this is Post-Patriot Act second thoughts about federal power?



HRC has long been an organization which gets into bed a little too easily w/ Republicans, at times. I remember in '92, HRC endorsed the scummy Alphonse D'Amato's U.S. Senate (NY) re-election bid (over a very decent, very pro-gay Democratic candidate), just because he made *one* pro-gay vote (it was either ENDA, or Hate Crimes IIRC). I understand the desire to be bi-partisan, where possible, but that doesn't mean you keep an incumbent just because they don't hate us. If we don't support those who truly SUPPORT (as opposed to just "tolerate") us, then who will?



GG One of the reasons that little "equal" symbol bumpersticker of theirs is laying on my coffeetable somewhere, instead of being on my car already. Out



ETA: Re: Cheney(s). I have to say that I understand Dick on this one: no matter his personal beliefs, he has to support Dubya in public (it's just that he usually tells Dubya what to think in private ). What specifically bad do you mean about Mary Cheney, Kieli? Other than supporting her dad's re-election (which, if Dubya supports the Amendment and daddy concurs, is admittedly heinous in and of itself)? And assuming you're also referring to Chrissy Gephardt, what's bad about her?

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 1/11/04 8:36 pm

[Kieli]

Now Holley are you proposing that you have a cure for my spicy undies?



You know, I have been noticing that the HRC has been sounding very Log Cabin-ish. *shudder* Perish the thought God, I'll miss Liz!

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Cheney Would Support Gay Marriage Ban

       

Sun Jan 11, 9:22 AM ET

       

DENVER - Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said states should handle the issue of gay marriage, now says he would support President Bush if he proposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.



Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, told The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News in interviews published Saturday that he still believes states should handle the issue, but that he would support Bush's decision.



"What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction, ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved and that is the way I preferred it," Cheney told the Post.



In the interview with the News, Cheney said that is still his opinion.



Bush has said he respects homosexuals' rights but draws the line at gay weddings. He asked government lawyers to research ways to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman after courts in Massachusetts and other states recognized the right of gays to the civil benefits of marriage.



"At this stage, obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes," Cheney told the Post.



Although there already is a federal law — the Defense of Marriage Act — that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, some argue that gay marriage should be banned to prevent states from acting independently.



Cheney's daughter, Mary, did not comment on the interview. A well-known figure in the Colorado gay community, Mary Cheney has worked for the Colorado Rockies baseball team and the Coors Brewing Co. where, among other duties, she worked on outreach to gays and lesbians.



She also worked as a personal aide to her father in the 2000 presidential campaign, and joined the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign last July as the Director of Vice Presidential Operations.

---

---

Firebird: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Kieli]

*sniff* I have to say, Mary Cheney doesn't impress me much. Neither does that other lesbian chick who's father is running for president. Their silence is so very telling. But it's all right for privileged lesbians to keep mum. They've already got money and prestige and all that. It's us common folk that have to fight, kill and die to get anywhere. That's ok, we don't need her opening her mouth anyway. God knows what might come out of it. *Pfft*

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[MadeinNZ]

Quote:

---

*waves to The Stranger Beast*

---

Mate - I couldn't get stranger if I tried.

"Oh! I know this one: "Slaying entails certain sacrifices... blah blah bity blah. I'm so stuffy, give me a scone."

"It's as if you know me." -- Buffy and Giles

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

ETA: Re: Cheney(s). I have to say that I understand Dick on this one: no matter his personal beliefs, he has to support Dubya in public (it's just that he usually tells Dubya what to think in private ). What specifically bad do you mean about Mary Cheney, Kieli? Other than supporting her dad's re-election (which, if Dubya supports the Amendment and daddy concurs, is admittedly heinous in and of itself)? And assuming you're also referring to Chrissy Gephardt, what's bad about her?

---

Well, now that you've asked, let's take Candace Gingrich as an example. Despite the fact that she's related to that blowhard former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, it's not stopped her from being an activist for gay rights. She's still very outspoken (albeit with less harsh tone than some activitists take) and has even wrote a book about how she is an "accidental activist" (www.debtaylor.com/fha/gingrich.html).



Thanks for that Gephardt thing btw. Now you haven't heard a peep from Chrissy or Mary. Not...a...damn...word. So what does this say? Do they actually approve of their parents' politics against gays and lesbians? Or is it more than they feel they're not like other gays so they a) don't want to rock the boat with their folks and b) are comfortable in their own little political and economic cushion (i.e. amongst the rich and famous Republicans who can afford to not worry about such little things are partner benefits, the right to marry whomever we choose, etc)?



It's hard to say because they've only been supporting their folks. I mean, Mary Cheney is probably best known as the mouthpiece for Coors Brewing Company, trying to drum up business for them in the gay community. And apparently her partner ain't too happy about supporting dear old Dick. However, since she's pretty much dropped off the face of the earth, we're only left guessing. I think I'm more disappointed in Dick Gephardt. Before now, I was thinking I might actually vote for the guy. But his positions have now become FAR more clear than they have been in the past and I find them very disturbing. And Chrissy, well, she's newly out and apparently is still dealing with that so it may be a bit hard for her to be objective about her father's issues. Granted, she has said that she doesn't agree with many of his positions but I really don't think she's going to be helpful to his campaign in drawing in gay voters. Her "Ask Chrissy" column on the Gephardt campaign website is rather interesting though and definitely a source of wry amusement on my part. Just reading how she deals with questions from some gays that write in often remind me of how a frog on a hot rock jumps around (www.dickgephardt2004.com/plugin/template/gephardt/247/*)

So, in short, I'm not all that impressed. But that's just me *shrug*

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

Kieli, you're obviously doing the responsible "Carefully Checking Out All the Candidates" thang that I should be doing, but haven't.



My limited understanding of Dick Gephardt (on LGBT issues) is thus: has homophobic past (that is, "homophobic" for a Democrat, which is not on the same vituperative scale of a 'phobic Republican). Daughter came out, which accelerated his learning curve. Now supports ENDA, domestic partnerships/civil unions. Doesn't "support gay marriage," but *opposes a Constitutional Amendment* to ban it also. Which is all to say that he's about where most of the "mainstream" Democrats are at (not as progressive---which is to say, righteous!---as Kucinich, Mosely Braun and Sharpton; not as conservative as Lieberman and, I think, Edwards. Roughly the same as Dean, Kerry, Clark---but doesn't have Dean's track-record).



Would you agree w/ the above assessment? And are you disappointed and disturbed about Gephardt in relation to Kucinich, Mosely Braun and Sharpton, or something else?



GG Have to say I feel some sympathy for *any* family member of a Presidential candidate. God, would that be awkward and stifling! Out

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Would you agree w/ the above assessment? And are you disappointed and disturbed about Gephardt in relation to Kucinich, Mosely Braun and Sharpton, or something else?

---

To answer your first question, I don't really know. I don't know enough abut Kucinich to know if he's genuine or full of hot air (most politicians are liars, IMHO, so I tend to go with that), Mosely Braun seems ok but some of her stances give me pause, and there is no way in bloody hell I would vote for that grandstanding poobah Sharpton. You'd have to drag me over broken glass and have Barbra Streisand sit on my chest belting out Yentl songs for an eternity before I'd even consider the notion.



Gephardt disappointed me mostly because I had come to admire him when he was Majority Leader of the House and Democratic Party Leader. He had poise, exuded calm, and always seem to be moderate in all things. Now that he's decided to run for President, the gloves are off and I've gotten to really see some of how he really thinks. Granted, he's still one to hide his feelings on many issues very well (I am ever so sure that he's not quite for gay/lesbian rights as he would have you believe. Hence the reason why Chrissy is still doing the two-step when asked about her father's views on the issue) so it's really tough to gauge how far he's fallen in my eyes. I guess I just expected better things from him.



To be honest, the only candidate that I would REALLY love to run and whom I would vote for in a heartbeat, no questions asked, would be Hilary Clinton. The woman has strength, admits her mistakes then moves on, has heart and conviction. And g-d knows this country needs a woman's touch in the Oval Office to undo all of the damage that Dubya has wreaked.



But these are just my personal observations and HO.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[WebWarlock]

I heard this on the radio this morning. Submitted for your discussion three articles on this so-called Flexosexual Revolution.



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...genews-utl

Quote:

---

Girl power

Women are breaking out a new weapon to attract men: Flirting with each other



By Alison Neumer

RedEye

Published January 16, 2004



Men, the fantasy starts here.



As five young women in low-cut jeans and tight, flimsy tops grind their hips together on the dance floor of a hot nightclub, space clears around them and the crowd stands back, mesmerized.



At another club, the clothes come off as the hour grows late. Six women, two topless, dance provocatively together.



Fantasy has become fad as scenes like these-at Buzz and SmartBar-play out night after night in Chicago's hottest clubs.



Lesbians? Bi-curious behavior? No, this is pure performance, cultural observers say, in the same vein as the "Girls Gone Wild" videos or Madonna swapping spit with Britney at the MTV awards. More young women are dancing, touching and kissing each other in public in order to titillate men.



Call it the Flexosexual Revolution, a feminine answer to the cultural overdose of metrosexuality.



The act seems to be working.



"What's better than two feminine women doing something to please you?" asks clubgoer Steve Matthews, 33, who said women have hooked up in front of him.



His neighbor at Buzz agreed.



"Guys think if they see a woman kissing a woman, it means she's a player," said James Allman, 31.



"They say 'Hey, that's a girl I want to be with.' "



Local party promoter Woody Levin says straight women making out at clubs and lounges is a common sight. In Chicago, he sees it most often at Gold Coast and River North spots, but occasionally in Lincoln Park bars as well.



"When you get a lot of alcohol and people out having a good time, they let loose," Levin says.



"Sexuality has become more out there in the media, and girls are pushing the envelope."



Just flip on an episode of "Elimidate" for what the soft-core porn industry might call girl-on-girl action. Or maybe you caught last night's episode of "Will & Grace," where Karen spouted off about dancing like "two drunk straight girls at a frat party."



Not everyone is impressed.



"It's just attention-getting," said one woman watching the scene at Buzz this week. "They're competing for the guys, they're not doing it for themselves."



Whatever their motives, young women are more willing to leave their options open when it comes to sexuality.



Recent news reports tell of high school girls who refuse to be labeled gay or straight and who carry out romantic relationships with whoever catches their eye-girl or guy.



The trend is called "bisexual chic" or "faux bisexual," reports the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.



On the club scene, though, it's often the straight women angling for guys who are creating the buzz.



"We dubbed it 'fluxual-sexual,' " says Eric Ferguson, co-host of the "Eric & Kathy" morning show on Chicago's WTMX-FM 101.9.



The topic popped up earlier this week, and female listeners called in to say they fit the description-straight women who, when they're out with their girlfriends, are physically flirtatious with each other.



"You see it more and more now. There's a certain permissiveness of the culture now, an ambiguity," Ferguson says. "It seems like a trendy, attention-getting thing to do. ... It went from the thing no one talks about to the thing everybody talks about."



And post Madonna-Britney, it's no longer shocking or unusual, says party promoter Levin.



"If a guy is looking to see it, if he eggs the girls on, they'll do it," Levin says.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

---

and



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...genews-utl

Quote:

---

Lesbians: Go for it

Young women should be free to test their sexuality, they say



By Kathryn Masterson

RedEye

Published January 16, 2004



The more the merrier is the attitude some members of Chicago's lesbian community have toward the number of younger women experimenting with their sexuality and sexual orientation.



These women and teens may not necessarily define themselves as "lesbian" or "bisexual," identifying instead as "queer" or choosing not to label themselves at all.



Aimee Pine, director of operations for the gay rights group Equality Illinois, says she sees the number of women one could consider bisexual increasing, especially among people under 30.



"I'm seeing a lot of 'Kissing Jessica Stein,' if you will," said Pine, 26, referring to the movie in which a straight woman gets fed up with dating men and tries dating a woman. "I think it's great; it's a reflection of society being more comfortable. ... It's OK to like a girl."



Jessica Halem, 31, works with teenagers and young adults and finds that the idea of describing themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual just doesn't make sense to them.



"A lot of them don't pick a label," Halem said. "They feel like 'lesbian' sounds really old; it sounds like the '70s."



It's all for the better, Halem said. These people are demanding more choices and openness in their world, and that's forcing the older gay community to be more free-thinking about gender and sexuality.



"Imagine if everyone thought they could have choices," Halem said. "It wouldn't be such a big deal."



What about the idea that some women are just hooking up with other women to attract the attention of men? Nothing to be offended about there, Halem and Pine say.



"We all did things for boys' attention, if we played into that," said Halem, who said she did worse things than kiss another girl in pursuit of a guy. She laughs at the "Girls Gone Wild" videos that show women kissing other women. That kind of fluid sexuality has been going on for ages in college dorm rooms and high schools, she said. Straight women experimenting with women, as well as lesbians being with men, is nothing new-it's just more in the public light.



"Right now, Snoop Dogg is filming it," she said.



Halem admits that it can be tough to foresee some women who have been with other women going back to a more traditional role of marriage and moving out to the suburbs. But there's also the possibility that a woman making out with or dating another woman just for the shock value might discover she really cares for the person she's with, or simply that she likes being with women better.



"You never know until you try-that's my motto," Pine said.



There have been rumblings of complaint about the new flexibility in some older gay circles, Pine said, but she compared the complaints to any generation gap, where the older one doesn't quite understand the younger one.



In fact, Pine said, older lesbians should feel happy about the fluidity in sexuality, because the rights and recognition they fought for paved the way for young women to express themselves in this way.



But the flexibility to try out variations of sexuality doesn't extend as easily to men, says Rick Garcia, head of Equality Illinois. While women can hold hands or dance or even kiss and not raise eyebrows, there's a real stigma for men doing the same things.



"We've always seen women have more flexibility with behavior and activity," Garcia said.

Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

---

and



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...genews-utl

Quote:

---

Attraction is emotional, not sexual



Washington Post

Published January 16, 2004



Female homosexuality may be grounded more in social interaction and emotional attraction and may change over time, recent studies suggest.



Young women also appear to be more open to homosexual relationships than young men are. In one recent national study, more than twice as many girls as boys reported being attracted to the same sex at least once.



Girls may be reacting, in part, to relationships gone sour with guys.



"Girls understand how girls think," says Chanda Harris, a high school junior near Washington, D.C. "You can tell a girl, 'I think I'm falling in love with you,' and she'll listen. A boy will slough that off, or run away. Besides, the young boys around me are into making money, selling weed and stuff. That's not what I'm about."



A high school senior, Kateria Rhodes, who says she has dated girls for five years, agrees with Harris.



"It's not the sex," she says. "Girls are there for you emotionally. Sure, they cheat sometimes, but I've found [dating girls] is better for me mentally. Actually it's better on every level."



She says she has friends who used to date girls and now date guys, and that her mother keeps telling her she'll change, too.



Harris doesn't feel that parental pressure: "My mother prefers me to be with girls than guys. She says I'm happier."

---

Make of this what you will.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"'A bunch of has-beens' how is that different from any other show on the WB?" - Bobcat Goldthwait, on "The Sureal Life"

[Kieli]

Erm....part of me wants to at a couple of these articles....mostly my reaction is

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

I'm all for experimentation (especially by the young, especially when mutual). It's the idea of performance---or worst of all, if one woman thinks it's performance (to attract men) and maybe the other doesn't---that is unpleasant.



About the whole "Women Emotional, not Sexual" thang. ::: ::: The idea that women are more intrinsically emotional (whereas men are more intrinsically sexual) is both an old chestnut and the dominant evolutionary theory (Based, as these theories always are, on reproduction: males want to maximize partners, ala "spreading their seed," females want some kind of bond in order to have a mate who provides for themselves and their offspring. Different strategies for optimal passing on of genes to the next generation).



The danger is when these chestnuts/theories are made prescriptive rather than descriptive. In other words, like it's good or expected for men to be promiscuous, and bad if females are. Especially in the gay community, we see this played out in stereotypes of gay male promiscuity, vs. "Lesbian Bed Death." There may be *some* truth to the stereotypes, but first and foremost, we're all individuals (w/ individual variations).



GG "But there's also the possibility that a woman making out with or dating another woman just for the shock value might discover she really cares for the person she's with, or simply that she likes being with women better." Now you're talkin'! Out



ETA: This is a rant I posted to the "T.A.T.U.: An Uneasy Feeling" Thread a few weeks ago, that seems apropos here:

Quote:

---

Another uneasy feeling



[Mods, please move this if you can find a more appropriate thread]



This may have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't seen it. Has anyone heard the song "Some Girls Dance with Women" by J.C. Chasez (a member of N' Sync, IIRC)? I hardly trust my hard-of-hearing ears, but the chorus sounds something like this:



Some girls dance with women

Knowing it gets them attention.

I want to get in with them--

Pass me a drink and let's go.



What a load of bull----!



Yeah J.C., these women dancing together: it's all about you. (Not!)



What a d*ckhead!



GG Anybody else heard this song? Am I hearing it correctly? WTF??? Out

---

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 1/17/04 4:34 pm

[xita]

I guess i am part of that older gay circle. I am all for young women doing whatever they want but for themselves, not as performance for others. I also think it's cool as long as people are honest. There shouldn't be one person who thinks it could be a long lasting relationship while the other is merely playing around. Both should be clear about what they want.



That last article is so ridiculous, I can't believe they are making such a statement on no research, just some interview with some kids who agree with that. Emotional... yeah, that's it.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[BabyJune]

xita, i am one of those younger-generation lesbians (18 and at college) who doesn't relate to this "just turning on guys" flexosexuality thing. I say it's great that these girls aren't facing much criticism or harassment, but it doesn't make explaining myself to others easier. When I say I'm a lesbian, that does not mean that I just hook up with girls. I want real relationships, a real family, the REAL DEAL.



What might be interesting is that I attend an all-women's, fairly liberal college. People always ask me if there are alot of lesbians and I don't know what to say. "Sure, but they're not really lesbians." or "Your guess is as good as mine." Even in an all-female enviroment, this "trendy" sexuality is present. Call them BUGs, call them LUGs. I call them confusing.



I just wanted to voice my opinion because I don't think that it's often heard.



Maybe I was just born in that strange time between fighting for your rights to love women and not caring about who loves who or has sex with whom.

[Diebrock]

Found here

Quote:

---

Gay Marriage Poll Gets Annulled

When the American Family Association posted an online poll last month asking its constituents their position on gay marriage, it thought it was engaging in a straightforward exercise.



The conservative organization supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it planned to forward to Congress the results of the poll, which it expected would support its position, as evidence of Americans' opposition to gay marriage.



But the AFA never counted on the power of the Internet. And once the URL to the poll escaped its intended audience, everything went haywire. As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio.



"We're very concerned that the traditional state of marriage is under threat in our country by homosexual activists," said AFA representative Buddy Smith. "It just so happens that homosexual activist groups around the country got a hold of the poll -- it was forwarded to them -- and they decided to have a little fun, and turn their organizations around the country (onto) the poll to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to. And so far, they succeeded with that."



Of course, no such poll can be said to represent an accurate picture of popular opinion. But, clearly, the AFA had hoped Congress would take the numbers it planned to produce as exactly that kind of evidence.



Now, Smith says, his organization has had to abandon its goal of taking the poll to Capitol Hill.



"We made the decision early on not to do that," Smith admitted, "because of how, as I say, the homosexual activists around the country have done their number on it."



So what happened?



Against the wishes of the AFA and its members, the poll leaked to the outside. And soon, people like Gabe Anderson began posting it to blogs, social-networking sites such as Friendster and sundry e-mail lists. When Anderson posted it to his blog on Dec. 18, 2003, the anti-gay-marriage position was leading, with 51.45 percent of respondents opposing gay marriage or civil unions.



But with his posting, in which he alerted his readers to the poll, Anderson -- and many like him -- began to unleash the democratic power that the Internet promises, and which organizations like the AFA must have forgotten: the ability to bring people together to fight for, or against, a cause.



"I definitely think that if an organization like the AFA wants to conduct a poll like this, they open up themselves to more than they expected," said Anderson. "I think it's a great example that the Internet can effect change and have an influence if there is a cause."



Surely, by now, with the rise of organizations like MoveOn.org and Internet-fueled political campaigns like Howard Dean's, such results should surprise no one.



But the AFA seems to have been caught by surprise, and is now trying to gain new currency from the outcome.



"Hopefully the results of the poll will be a wake-up call," said Smith, "to realize the need for us to get more focused and organized and to do what we need to do."



But in the meantime, the AFA and organizations like it will have to get used to the idea that if they want to use the Internet as a tool, they had better understand how it works.



"I think it's pretty cool," said Anderson. "It's empowering that the Internet can have this kind of effect. As an individual, your first reaction is, 'I don't know if I can make a difference.' This is a good example of helping people who are historically apathetic (to say), 'Maybe my vote will matter, too.'"

---

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

So the AFA believes that there are over 508,000 "homosexual activists"? I can only wish!



GG At least 508,001: because I never heard of (nor voted in) this poll Out

[Diebrock]

Didn't someone post the poll here?

I honestly can't remember. I got the mail to 'vote at this poll' from almost all of my mailing lists (often multiple times). I posted it here because I thought people had discussed it here. But even if not it is a great nyeah, nyeah, nyeah thing.

_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Kieli]

Yep...it was me...I admit it...I got the poll in my email at work and voted 508,000 times.....one for each lie the AFA has been spreading about us "homosexual activists"....Take that Dr. Dobson...*flexes her mighty gay muscles and tries to lift her broadsword in mock salute*

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[sheila wt]

I voted and sent the link to all my mailing lists right after the poll started.

I know it's a small victory, but it does feel good, doesn't it?

--------------------------
"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)

Edited by: sheila wt at: 1/23/04 8:47 am

[Amymlc]

Didn't they want a poll that showed that the majority of American's feel that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legal? Don't homosexual activists count as part of the population, or do only people apposed to homosexual rights count as American citizens? I don't get how they can even make the argument that the homosexual activists are at fault for making the pole not favor their cause?

[kpmuse]

From CNN

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/23/gay.marriage.states.ap/index.html



States play defense on gay marriage



(AP) --Despite laws on the books already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least eight states are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere.



In each case, Republican lawmakers in states with existing Defense of Marriage acts seek to go a step further, amending their constitutions to specify that marriage must be heterosexual. State Rep. Bill Graves, a bill sponsor in Oklahoma, wants to stipulate that same-sex unions are "repugnant to the public policy" of the state.



Supporters say the constitutional amendments are necessary to ensure that legislation and court judgments in other states -- such as the recent ruling in favor of gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court -- will not compel recognition of same-sex unions in their own states.



Gay-rights activists see the amendment campaign as vindictive and partisan.



"This is a political attack, motivated by fierce anti-gay opponents who want to slam us again and again," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "They are not just looking to suppress gay marriage, but to deny gay people any measure of legal protection and human dignity."



In all, 37 states and the federal government have Defense of Marriage acts that say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.



Ohio may soon become the 38th state; its Senate approved one of the most far-reaching gay marriage bans in the nation Wednesday, making only minor changes in a House-passed version. Going further than the laws in most states, Ohio's bill also would prohibit state employees from getting benefits for domestic partners, whether gay or straight.



Proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage have been introduced in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Michigan; one is expected soon in Alabama. An Idaho Republican, Rep. Henry Kulczyk, plans to introduce a similar measure there, to the dismay of some Democrats.



"We've got enough contention to deal with rather than going through a litmus test for the reactionary right," said Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett.



Massachusetts does not have a Defense of Marriage Act, but the high court ruling there has sparked vociferous public debate and an anti-gay marriage amendment has been proposed by its lawmakers as well.



The measure is Virginia has already advanced, winning unanimous support this week in the House Rules Committee.



"Marriage for 6,000 years has been defined a certain way," said the amendment's sponsor, Robert McDonnell.



Georgia's proposed amendment -- which could go on the November general election ballot -- was presented Wednesday in the state Senate. Any change to traditional marriage "begins to tear at the foundations of our institutions," said Senate Republican Leader Bill Stephens.



Gay-rights advocates and some Democratic lawmakers denounced the measure as politically motivated.



"The purpose of amendments is to create protections for the citizens of Georgia, not to write discrimination into the constitution," said Allen Thornell, executive director of the gay-rights group Georgia Equality.



The American Friends Service Committee -- a Quaker social justice group -- this week joined the campaign against the proposed amendment in Michigan, urging people to e-mail their legislators. In Kentucky, about 30 gay-rights supporters protested Wednesday at the state Capitol, many carrying signs saying, "Anti-marriage amendments hurt my family."



Two Kentucky legislators who oppose the amendment are sponsoring a counterproposal that would outlaw discrimination against gays.



"There's no excuse why fairness cannot be passed," said Democratic Rep. Kathy Stein. "Other than the fact that, unfortunately, a number of my colleagues ... are afraid to think about it."



Pending final resolution of the Massachusetts court ruling, no state allows full-fledged same-sex marriages. Vermont recognizes marriage-like civil unions, while California, Hawaii and New Jersey grant various rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.



Legislators in Maryland and Colorado hope to get civil union legislation considered by their colleagues this session.



In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, President Bush indicated he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit marriage to a man and a woman. He suggested this option would be needed only if "activist judges" overruled existing federal and state Defense of Marriage laws.



If Ohio enacts its pending Defense of Marriage act as expected, only 12 states, including Massachusetts, would be without one. The others are Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.