The Blog

Amy Shiner: A Kinky Family Reunion

2012-02-22T22:02:00Z

I have always said that I have blood family and chosen family. My blood family, which, depending on the day of the week and the moon cycle, might not be talking to me, is eclectic. My chosen family, which is made up of close friends from my kink and church communities, as well as random people I meet at the bus stop, is eclectic, but I rarely get to see it.

A few weekends ago I traveled to Providence, R.I. for a "family reunion." The winter 2012 Fetish Fair Fleamarket (also known as FFF, or simply the "Flea"), held by the New England Leather Association (NELA) every year since 1992, is what I call a perfect reunion. One weekend a year (for the past few years it has been held near Valentine's Day), 6,000 members of the kink community gather for three days of workshops and panels on different kinks, fetishes, and relationship issues. From the common "Rope 101" classes to workshops on monogamy, which many community members feel is being outnumbered by polyamorous relationships, to classes on tickling and age play, there is something for everyone.

This was my second Flea, the first one being in the winter of 2007. To sum up my experiences from the first conference, I joke that I went to the Flea and all I brought home was Eric. But really, whether you've been in the community for 25-plus years or are new to the experience, Flea is not just about the toys and workshops; it's about coming together as a strong community, a community that I support, and one that has in turn supported me through medical problems and coming-of-age issues.

At this last Flea, I had the pleasure of attending classes on different forms of communication and fetishes. The familiar snap of a whip brought my attention to the bullwhip lounge, one of the two specialty rooms that NELA offers to Flea-goers who want to practice their skills. At the same time, a class on monogamy caught my attention. Admitting to myself that I have very little knowledge of monogamy, I felt compelled to go.

All walks of life come to the Flea, though: monogamous and non-monogamous couples, polyamorous couples, "bigs" and "littles" (that is, people who take part in age play, a fetish that involves taking on a role as a younger or older being, mentality, emotionally, and in spirit), "furries," and people who focus on one or two strong areas come together to create a welcoming community. Over the three days of the Flea, I had access to five floors of vendors, organization booths, and classrooms offering different information and opportunities.

So where do I fit into the realm of things? I will admit to a few things, working my way from the most simple to the most detailed. Please feel free to skip to the next paragraph after you have read enough:

I am Amy.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger and a geek.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger, geek, and submissive.

I am Amy Shiner, a sex-positive blogger, geek, submissive, and masochist.

Those are five statements I feel comfortable making to anyone, even those who attend the Flea. You may ask why I'm not explaining what my submission and masochism is. I do not want to give even the perception that this is only for one person or another. The community, which is made up of all sorts of people who believe either that everyone has their own identity or that they have all the answers (what we call the "twue" dominants and submissives), does not need me saying why I fit in.

Katherine Franke: PFLAG Holds Israeli Pinkwashing Event

2012-02-22T20:21:00Z

PFLAG, Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national organization that "promotes the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, their families and friends," has unfortunately gotten snared in a "pinkwashing" event by the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. Jay Huckaby, PFLAG's Executive Director, sent out an invitation for a meeting with Anat Avissar from Aguda, Israel's national LGBT organization, that was held this morning, Feb. 22, at PFLAG's headquarters in Washington, D.C. Most importantly, the event is co-sponsored by the Israeli Embassy to the U.N., and the invitation is printed on joint PFLAG/Israeli Embassy letterhead:

In a letter I sent Jay Huckaby on Feb. 20, expressing my concern about PFLAG sponsoring an event with the Israeli government, I wrote:

I am particularly concerned about the degree to which the Israeli government has enlisted members of the gay community to be part of larger foreign policy efforts to repair Israel's international reputation. Aguda, unfortunately, has played a key role in this national re-branding campaign, and I hate to see an organization as important as PFLAG become implicated in a public relations campaign that will likely tarnish its well-earned reputation.

I have recently returned from Israel/Palestine as part of a delegation of prominent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer academics, activists, artists, and cultural workers who travelled to the West Bank to better understand the reality of occupation on the ground and to meet with lesbian, gay, trans and queer Palestinians about the work they are doing in Palestine. Our delegation was historic, insofar as we were the first group to visit the Occupied Territories with an explicit gay/trans/queer focus. What we learned while we were there was the degree to which the Israeli government has set out to counter international criticism it has received for its treatment of Palestinians by advertising the gay-friendliness of Israeli culture. In this sense, gay and lesbian Israelis have been recruited by their government to travel internationally to places such as Washington D.C., to act as ambassadors to rehabilitate Israel's international reputation in meetings, conferences and convenings such as the one you are holding on Wednesday. So too, the Israeli government has appropriated rather large sums to underwrite gay and lesbian events in the U.S. and Europe as a part of this larger public relations effort. The Equality Forum's 2012 Global Summit, to be held in May in Philadelphia, is another salient example.

In our delegation's conversations with gay, lesbian, trans and queer activists in the West Bank, they expressed great frustration that that their lives and well-being were being used by some voices within Israeli to drum up support for Israeli policy and to demonize Palestinian society. In fact, they are well organized and are doing incredible work through two principal organizations: al Qaws (www.alqaws.org) and Aswat (www.aswatgroup.org). Both of these organizations provide support services, including a telephone help line, to LGBT people in the region. Unfortunately, Aguda representatives are often quoted as saying that they run the only telephone support line in the Middle East. So too, as part of Aguda's tour through the U.S. and Canada this month, their director, Mike Hamel, told a Canadian reporter that: "when it comes to the Middle East, [Israel] is the only place you can be LGBT and be active." This simply isn't the case, as the activists we met with during our delegation made evident. While it is wonderful that the Aguda representatives are interested in meeting with U.S. LGBT organizations such as PFLAG, it is truly unfortunate that they do not or cannot work more closely with the LGBT groups in their own back yard.

I write you now not to discourage you from doing coalition work with partners around the globe who share PFLAG's mission, but out of concern that you and PFLAG have been drawn into a public relations campaign launched by the state of Israel that is using gay rights to advance larger agendas that well-exceed PFLAG's mission. To be sure, many gay and lesbian people live open, free lives in Israel, particularly in Tel Aviv, and this is something to celebrate. So too, there is much to learn from cross-cultural dialogue about doing gay and lesbian rights work in transnational settings. But it is tragic to witness how LGBT rights have been politicized and manipulated for cynical reasons in certain corners of the globe, particularly -- although not exclusively -- in the Middle East.

If you choose to go ahead with your meeting with Aguda representatives on Wedensday, I would encourage you to be careful not to be drawn into a larger reputational re-branding campaign that was launched in 2005 by then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to "make people like us." So too, I would encourage you to meet and partner with Palestinian LGBT organizations to better round out your exposure to the challenges and tools of making life more free for LGBT people in the region.

Members of our delegation in January were so moved by what we saw and what we learned that we co-authored a statement of solidarity with the LGBT people and organizations we met in the West Bank: http://www.queersolidaritywithpalestine.com/. The Middle East is a very complicated part of the world, to be sure, and the issue of LGBT rights there is equally complicated, in many ways more so than here in the U.S. I urge you and the PFLAG leadership to reconsider undertaking joint projects or receiving funding from any national entity, but particularly from the state of Israel, given the cynical use of gay rights in larger politics of the region.

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter further.

I have not yet received a response from Mr. Huckaby.

Follow the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law on Facebook

Read the Gender & Sexuality Law Blog

Edward Wyckoff Williams: The Cognitive Dissonance of Being Gay and Republican: Paul Babeu Speaks But Cannot See

2012-02-22T19:59:00Z

Perhaps Paul Babeu, the Arizona sheriff and former Romney campaign manager, should spend more time studying the Republican Party's approach to gay rights. The former U.S. serviceman turned law enforcement officer, who by all accounts has lived an exemplary life, has a blaringly obvious blindside.

Babeu is currently embroiled in a scandal involving a Mexican immigrant male with whom he admittedly carried on a secret three-year relationship. At present, the details remain unclear, but the story seems to embody the classic characteristics of a love affair gone wrong: hard feelings became harsh accusations. Following the demise of their relationship, "Jose," the man identified as Babeu's ex-lover, has accused the sheriff of threatening him with deportation as a tactic to secure his silence.

Babeu, who is currently running for Congress on the GOP ticket, achieved national notoriety as a new, youthful face of Tea Party conservatism when, in 2010, he appeared in a reelection campaign advert for Senator John McCain. The now-infamous commercial focused on border control and featured Babeu alongside McCain urging President Barack Obama to "complete the danged fence." Babeu, who rode the post-2008 Tea Party wave into office, joined Governor Jan Brewer and the state's Republican-majority legislature in pushing for a strict anti-immigrant (read: "anti-Hispanic") platform, causing Arizona to become the stage for a trifecta of xenophobia, GOP politics, and anti-Obama sentiment. The relatively unassuming patriot, who previously served in Iraq as a member of the Army National Guard, bought into a reenergized Republican platform of national security, traditional values, and "taking back the country." In the face of growing concern over violence among Mexican drug cartels, and a flailing U.S. economy still struggling to provide jobs for American workers -- let alone illegal immigrants -- the GOP's aggressive message resonated.

But Babeu had a secret, and one he seems to have been all too happy to keep until forced to admit. Publicly, Babeu supported conservative, Republican dogma, which is all too often anti-gay-rights in general and anti-gay-marriage in particular. Privately, he has been perusing gay dating websites and engaged in romantic relationships with other men. This wouldn't be newsworthy except for its inherent hypocrisy and political significance amidst a Republican presidential primary race defined by culture wars. Abortion, women's contraceptive rights, and gay marriage have each become fodder for Republican debates and policy proposals, all in the name of Christian ideals and American exceptionalism.

In a recent interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Paul Babeu naively suggested that the Republican candidates would agree with him that his personal life should not be infringed upon by the government. This is where the wave of cognitive dissonance presents an overwhelming tide. Either Babeu has no idea how aggressively far-right the modern Republican Party has become in the Age of Obama, or he has chosen willful ignorance, like too many openly gay Republicans.

Santorum made it clear there should be no public policy effort at the federal or state level to support, protect, or promote the interests of gay Americans. Mitt Romney has articulated his disappointment with President Obama's decision to repeal DADT, the antiquated U.S. military policy that excluded gays from serving openly. Romney went further by attacking Obama's directive to the Justice Department to cease defending DOMA, which allows states to ignore and disregard gay marriages that have been granted in another state or territory. Gingrich is equally static on the issue of gay marriage, despite currently being with his third wife, following two messy extramarital affairs and divorce. Ron Paul, hailed as the ambassador of libertarian idealism and freedom from government control, continues to spout the well-rehearsed line that marriage should be only "between one man and one woman." In what political universe is Paul Babeu living?

If love, family, God, and country are the central tenets of his faith and patriotism, then he appears sorely misguided. Today's GOP is as anti-gay as it is anti-abortion and anti-Obama. Babeu's insistence on supporting a political party forcefully opposed to issues that affect his personal happiness and govern his individual choice either reflects a deep-seated self-hatred and internalized homophobia or mirrors the broader hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party: namely, saying one thing but meaning another, using lies in defiance of facts, and promoting propaganda as a platform for political consciousness.

Babeu's opponent for the Congressional seat, Arizona State Senator Ron Gould, is now poised to gain more support in a relatively conservative district. Babeu, 43, had remained tacit on his public stance for gay rights, but following the revelation of his gay affair, he said, "I can be a supporter and get out and help articulate as we progress as a culture and a society." The logic behind such a statement is clearly flawed, as gay rights activists and organizations continue to work toward equality in civil rights, achieving real success from Washington to Maryland, California to New York. Babeu and his ilk remain trapped in a past that ignores progress, as if American culture and society has not already moved on beyond where the Republican mindset sits stunted. Countless European nations, and even South Africa, the former cradle of apartheid, have embraced gay rights. When will the so-called freedom-loving, compassionate conservatives in America come around to the idea? And why do gay Americans like Paul Babeu cling to GOP ideology and rhetoric that are specifically designed to deny people like him the fullness of an American dream and great American love story?

Rion Sabean: 'Men-Ups': How I Got The Idea For My Gender-Bending Photo Series (PHOTOS)

2012-02-22T19:26:00Z

At the beginning "Men-Ups" was a very vague idea I had that I wanted to be, at its core, the mixing of gender stereotypes, which, at that point, was something I hadn't made a stab at but really wanted to attempt. One day it just struck me that I would use the simple poses of classic pin-up imagery, which are very culturally recognizable, especially in terms of their immediate association with the guise of femininity, but pair them with males who were dressed masculinely or playing the part of the recognizably masculine.

From there I began to construct "characters" for each image, all of which included poses that I knew I wanted the models to try. My main goal for the series was to suggest to the viewer something familiar, but with a twist that could both allure and confound. Through the draw of the photographs and the jarring nature of the unfamiliar, I hope to have the viewer question their responses and why they feel the reaction that they do, and to associate those feelings with an understanding of societal brainwashing. Mainly, I want my audience to ask two things: why is it considered sexy for a woman to pose in such ways, and why isn't it sexy for a man to do the same?

Gender isn't naturally born as society implies. It isn't black-and-white. It isn't feminine-vs.-masculine. Humans can't be so rigidly defined, because those definitions are built on baseless, antiquated implications. I believe that thinking and asking questions (whether they can be fully answered or not) builds a freer, open-minded approach to life that can only allow for an unadulterated understanding to the complexity of human beings.

For more from Rion Sabean, visit his website.

PHOTOS:

David Groshoff: Trying To Queer Things Up A Little

2012-02-22T19:00:00Z

Since his Seattle grunge days teaming with eventual Pearl Jam lead singer Eddie Vedder in the early 1990s as a member of the band Temple of the Dog, rock vocalist Chris Cornell, who has also fronted for Soundgarden and Audioslave, has been one of my favorite lead vocalists.

As many people have already seen, Mr. Cornell remained true to his vocal roots in playing a remarkably honest tribute to the late Whitney Houston, singing Ms. Houston's famous cover of Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You" last week.

Beyond Mr. Cornell's respecting Ms. Houston, who was viewed as an icon for many in the queer community, The Huffington Post, The Advocate, and Perez Hilton, among others, have reported that Mr. Cornell recently lashed out at someone who disparagingly called a man (who had made statements supportive of President Obama) "queer" and defended the person who received the reportedly insulting language.

In nearly every one of my columns here, at least one reader has demonstrated a problem with my use of the word "queer." Sometimes multiple people have posted objections in the comments to the same article, despite my or others having already addressed the word's usage.

So, please allow me to make a couple of points.

First, I use the term "queer" as an umbrella term. Calling this section of The Huffington Post "Gay Voices" (or even including the other sections of "Lesbian," "Bisexual," and "Transgender") can be demeaning and marginalizing to a number of sexual minorities. People who self-identify (or are identified by others) as lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, pansexual, transgender, genderqueer, intersex, non-cisgender, non-cissexual, and others, don't necessarily fall under these terms. I generally write regarding laws and societal regulations that impact many queer people, not just gay men. But when a law or judicial opinion tends to impact gay people specifically, I attempt to employ that term.

Second, "queer" is a term that has been used and embraced in generally non-negative ways by various pop cultural outlets, including the 1995 Billboard-charted song "Queer" by the band Garbage, the NBC television show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and the cable-TV show Queer As Folk serving as a few examples.

Third, I write my Huffington Post columns in my position as a law professor. As a law student, I learned "gay rights" law directly from the woman credited with creating the area as its own unique academic discipline, Professor Rhonda R. Rivera. On the first day of class, the first thing Professor Rivera wrote on the board was not "Sexual Orientation Law," as listed in the course guide, but her preferred term, "Queer Law."

But beyond that class in the mid-1990s, the term "queer" is seen throughout academia and across the United States, not just in the "blue" states or "liberal elite" schools. From Virginia Commonwealth to SUNY Buffalo to Indiana University and its in-state rival, Purdue University, to Ohio's Denison University to the University of Nebraska and the University of Kentucky, from Northern Arizona to DePaul University (a Catholic institution) and Wesleyen, Yale, and Harvard University, each school has queer studies departments, majors, minors, certificates, or student groups.

And speaking of both Harvard and using potentially offensive terms in arguable ways, I'm an alumnus who attended the school while Jeremy Lin played for the Crimson, long before the current Linsanity swept New York and the nation. Yet in the past week, as the Linsanity has grown to the point of Lin's involving intellectual property law, two media personalities in the ESPN family got fired or suspended for using a historically anti-Asian slur. However, Jeremy Lin himself in the past (albeit while a kid) embraced that same slur, according to CBSsports.com, by referring to himself as "ChinkBalla88" on his Xanga page several years ago, which also made some questionable comments about others.

The bottom line for me is that the person who employs a potentially offensive term, the manner in which that person employs that term, and the power differential between that person and the recipient of the term are important items to consider before having a knee-jerk reaction to one's hearing or reading that term. As demonstrated above, the use of "queer" probably shouldn't shock or offend reasonable people when the speaker intentionally employs the term in a manner not meant to shock, offend, or imply a power differential between the speaker (writer) and the listener (reader).

From what's being reported, however, the recipient of Chris Cornell's anger had used the term "queer" to denigrate, using the word in its historically bigoted way. Assuming that the reporting of the incident is accurate, I commend Chris Cornell for verbally responding to someone's pejorative and intimidating use of what can be an offensive term. Lexicon, however, doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I hope that the foregoing column demonstrated that the importance of context in diction is crystal queer.

Margaret Cho: It Gets Better: How I Overcame Childhood Bullying

2012-02-22T18:17:00Z

I was bullied pretty badly when I was a kid, the worst period falling between the ages of 10 and 14, I think. People tell me to get over it, and that I am an adult now, privileged and famous and constantly applauded not only in my primary field, stand-up comedy, but also in practically every endeavor I have chosen to devote myself to, from acting to burlesque bump-and-grind to songwriting. I am told I have no right to complain, and that may be true to some extent, the good in my life flowing in from all directions, satisfaction pulsing through me every second of the day, but I will never stop complaining until I am dead in the ground or even afterward, probably, if I can find a way back out of the light to complain about the afterlife. I will never stop complaining. It's kind of fun to me now, and looking back, I was treated so terribly that I don't feel I have the capacity to forgive. F*ck forgiveness and all that. I think that even Jesus would say, "Yeah I guess you do have a point..."

I was hurt because I was different, and so sharing my experience of being beaten and hated and called ugly and fat and queer and foreign and perverse and gluttonous and lazy and filthy and dishonest and yet all the while remaining invisible heals me, and heals others when they hear it -- those who are suffering right now. If you are going through this kind of sh*t today, try to remember that I lived through it and now thrive. I f*cking thrive.

My former bullies pay extra to come backstage and meet me after shows, and I pretend not to know them in front of their friends. It is the most divine pleasure to exact the revenge of the brutalized child that resides within. Don't consider suicide. Consider revenge. Consider what I get to do now. Know that this could be your life, too. Grow up and let anyone try to contend with the adult you. The grown-up you will be fearsome and tremendous, not only for all the pain you have endured but also because you have survived it. I cannot wait to meet you, tall and mighty in your grown glory. Stay here so we can eventually come together and be friends. Stay so you can tell me your story. I need to hear it.

I love the It Gets Better campaign, and I want to tell you that it not only gets better; it gets amazing, and don't leave before you can witness it firsthand. Stick around for awhile. The best stuff comes later in life. It just does. You'll see. You just have to trust me on this one, but you will be glad that you did.

There were a few things that saved me, like the young gay men my father employed at his bookstore, who would ride me on the back of their café racers, motorbikes that were butch yet classy as hell, built for speed first and beauty next. They'd tell my father that if I got tattoos, maybe then I would have friends, and this is true today, as if they had been telling me my fortune. I have tattoos, and I have many, many friends.

Music was like a hot bath I could escape into, steamy and warming me to the bone. I still am comforted greatly by sounds. Chord progressions and lyrics were my cliques and confidants. Songs sustained me more than I can say here, more than I can explain in words.

Comedy was the key to everything. I grew up fast and controlled my future by bringing it on faster than it naturally unfolded. I cheated myself out of a childhood but then got a running headstart into adulthood that no one else could keep up with.

All these things help me still, revive me when I feel weak, and remind me how far I have come and where I am going.

This post also appears at MargaretCho.com.

Logan Lynn: Crabs In The Barrel: The Problem With The Gay Press

2012-02-22T17:51:00Z

As individuals in a marginalized group, we are often all placed together into a single pot by society. In this case, I am referring to the queer pot (but this happens around race, gender, age, religion, class -- you name it). All of us, as members of the LGBT community, with all our differences, have this one thing in common: we are the minority. There is something about all of us that is unlike much of the rest of the world, and much of the rest of the world's reaction to that difference can be painful, isolating, and dangerous.

Frequently, members of the greater community become fixated on our sexuality or gender expression, and they try to lump us together, assign us roles within our designated letter of the acronym, and dehumanize us in the process. One would hope this outer pressure would be enough to bring us together as LGBT people, that we would unite and become stronger in numbers and build a community so organized and powerful that our being a minority no longer mattered. Sadly, this has not been my experience as a man-loving man, nor in my work with gay organizations, nor as an out artist in the entertainment industry.

Being a public figure in the queer community is tough. You have to have pretty thick skin to tolerate the external homophobia that comes at you as a result of increased visibility, but I think I was raised to expect this, so it's never a big shock when it happens. I know the world wants to see me dead on some level, or at least see me stop being such a "goddamn fag," so it doesn't surprise me when that pressure arrives. I recognize it coming a mile away and have learned methods of processing the external hate in such a way that it no longer hurts me. I have not, however, found or been able to develop a way of moving through the crab mentality of my own community without injury.

For those of you who have not heard this saying before, "crab mentality" (also known as "crabs in the barrel," or "crabs in the bucket") refers to the metaphor of a pot of live crabs about to be killed. Individually, the crabs could escape from the pot without any trouble, but when they are all in the pot together, they grab at each other in a pointless domination game that prevents any of them from escaping, thus ensuring their collective demise. When related to human behavior in social movements, the term is most commonly used in association with a short-sighted, non-constructive approach instead of a unified, long-term, productive mentality. As an openly gay musician, I have experienced this problem mostly via the gay press. Certainly, I've received my fair share of nasty emails and messages from people online and in person over the 10-plus years I've been doing this, as well, but there's a distinctive sting that comes from someone in the queer media pulling me and my people back into the pot, and I believe that action trickles down into our culture and leaks out into our community consciousness from there.

In 2009, just as my record From Pillar to Post for The Dandy Warhols was about to be released, a major LGBT magazine in the U.K. (which shall remain nameless purely out of my not wanting to promote their shitty rag on The Huffington Post) ran a story on me that called me a fat, ugly, "ginger bear," stating at one point in the article that "Logan Lynn is proof that some music is best listened to with your eyes closed." I remember standing in the bookstore with my friend, reading it and remarking on how strange the feeling of being made fun of in print was.

I had gotten bad reviews before, but that's not what this was. This particular gay male writer had actually enjoyed the record; he just didn't like my fat, ugly, "ginger bear" body, and he proceeded to tell the rest of the queer community of Europe in glossy, major-magazine print that they shouldn't, either. What was the point of that? What about my face had made this writer be so cruel? I did my best not to internalize this new form of bullying, bought all the copies of the magazine wherever I went the rest of the month to minimize the local damage (something I had seen Carrie Bradshaw do on Sex and the City once), and counted the days until the next issue came out. This experience left me wounded, in spite of my attempts at not internalizing it, and the effects of this writer's "review" remained with me for years.

I started working with Portland's LGBT community center in 2010 and have noticed this all-too-familiar crab mentality playing out on the local level here, as well. I fear this may be the nature of queer culture and media these days. Sensationalized "news" pitting community members against the organizations working to help them, reporters all seeking out gossip for sound bites instead of facts for real stories, editors infusing the personal opinions of publishers into their political reporting, papers highlighting advertisers instead of readers to secure funding -- the list goes on and on, and more often than not, the keepers of our community voice have their own agendas they are pushing.

These hidden agendas get picked up by the people receiving the message and spread like a virus from there, disguised as the community's voice, but it's not actually the community's voice anymore; it's just some asshole who wants you to buy what they are selling, some king crab with more influence than you who doesn't want you to see the big world outside the crab pot. This is why it is so important for us to be the keepers of our own stories, and why LGBT organizations that help to facilitate a more unified community are vital to the ongoing progress of our movement.

If you don't like how your story is being told, disengage from the ones telling it and find ways to tell it yourself. They are everywhere! If you are an advertiser, get to know the content of the media outlets you support with your marketing dollars. Do you agree with how they are portraying your community? If not, find media outlets that are more in line with your values -- or get the word out about your business through partnerships with nonprofits and resource centers doing the work you actually want your dollars to support.

I challenge the local, national, and international queer press to step back and look at the bigger picture. I suggest that you work harder to be journalists instead of just lazily stirring the pot we have been placed in by those who would do us harm. Empowering the LGBT community and our allies rather than being the evil media crab claw that pulls us down to our collective demise will no doubt serve you better in the end. Some of us are actually still paying close attention to what you print, and we can tell the difference between the two.

For more, visit LoganLynnMusic.com.

Follow Logan Lynn on Facebook: Facebook.com/LoganLynnPDX.

Robert Levithan: Why We Lie About Our Age

2012-02-22T17:09:00Z

"If people knew my real age, I'd never work again." I have heard this plaint more than once. The last time was the day before yesterday, when talking about age with a vivacious, successful Brazilian friend. She doesn't dare tell the truth about her age.

Why do most people lie about their age? Because they think they have to. Our culture at large -- and our gay male culture, specifically -- embody ageism. Young is good. Older is less good.

On Facebook few people put their year of birth. For online dating sites, not to mention hookup sites, there is such pressure to lie that those of us who tell the truth are odd men out. When I post my age as 60, men think I'm somewhere between 64 and 75. Again, why do we lie about our age?

Ageism, yes. Internalized ageism, as well. Internalized prejudice is when we operate out of a learned prejudice about something we are: I have been exploring my own internalized homophobia, anti-Semitism, and AIDS-phobia, however subtle or overt, for years. I lead workshops where we have looked at our internalized prejudice, such as racism, classism, and genderism.

How do we know when we are operating from internalized prejudice? When we try to "pass" without cause. When we are living in the belief that what we are is less than what other people are; when we have bought into other people's prejudices (which do exist) and perceive danger even when it doesn't exist.

There are situations where honesty about my sexual orientation, my HIV status, or my religious heritage could get me killed. I would lie or hide if my life were at stake. However, often I observe "passing" behavior when there is no danger. Most of us will not suffer harm if we are honest about our sexuality or our age. We do, however, suffer psychically, from constant denial of the truth about who or what we.

In the workshops there is one internalized prejudice that absolutely everyone relates to: internalized ageism. When asked, all perceived the statement "You look younger than your age" as a compliment. We are passing. At 90 my father would be insulted if someone didn't say he looked at least 15 years younger. Recently, I dated a man I met online. His profile said 38. I didn't doubt it. In conversation, it came up that he is actually 47. I asked him why he lied. "Because I look 38," he said. He didn't like it when I suggested that he is perpetuating distorted behaviors around age. To paraphrase Gloria Steinem, "this is what 47 looks like."

We are complicit if we continue to play this game. I received a comment that an online photo of mine looked like it had been "royally airbrushed." This is not true. And it reflects a too-oft-accepted idea of what a 59-year-old man looks like. Age is how long we have been in this body -- it is not our vitality, and it is not our beauty.

My friend David heard I was writing about why people lie about their age; in his best Olympia-Dukakis-in-Moonstruck voice, he quipped, "Because they are afraid of death." My response is that we are afraid of perceived social death. We act as if we might die, but we don't.

Telling the truth about our age could be neutral. The more of us who do it, the more of a norm it will become.

Michelangelo Signorile: How The Closet Corrupted Arizona Sheriff Babeu

2012-02-22T17:05:01Z

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu may or may not have threatened to deport his former boyfriend back to Mexico, but the scandal that erupted over the weekend, and which forced the GOP Congressional candidate to resign as Mitt Romney's campaign co-chair in Arizona, does underscore one salient fact: closeted gay public figures are compromised, always harboring a secret they fear may get out. That often inspires them to go to great lengths in deceiving the public.

This is especially true in the Republican Party, where being an openly gay politician is still, largely, a political death sentence. There was Babeu, just days ago, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington -- before the world knew he was gay -- being heralded by conservative leaders for right-wing border patrol policies that put him in league with "America's toughest sheriff" Joe Arpaio (who is now distancing himself from Babeu). This was the same CPAC that had banned the gay group GOProud.

Babeu spent years covering up his sexual orientation, often supporting politicians who've pushed anti-gay policies. A frequent guest on Fox News, he'd appeared in a John McCain for President ad -- a veteran of the war in Iraq supporting a candidate who was a driving force against the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Babeu is now trying to portray himself as the victim, someone under attack by the media and others for his sexual orientation. But LGBT Arizonans have been under attack from GOP-inspired anti-gay ballot measures for years, and Babeu hadn't thought it important enough to talk about.

But suddenly we're learning of his positions on gay rights. He now says he supports same-sex marriage and repeal of DADT. When was this GOP Congressional candidate going to tell voters about these positions, which put him with a tiny minority of House members (only 15 GOP House members voted for DADT repeal, while the GOP House leadership is defending the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court)?

The Phoenix New Times reporter who broke the story, Monica Alonzo, told me that Babeu has dodged questions about these issues at every turn so far. Was he going to espouse his enlightened positions on these issues before November, or was he going to eventually offer hardline anti-gay positions to get elected in his very conservative district?

Now that he's been outed, it would be ludicrous of Bebeu, a military veteran, to say he favors DADT or, as a gay man, to have any other anti-gay position. Trying to save his political career, he's mentioned Congressman Ron Paul and his brand of libertarian Republicanism in several of his press appearances in the past few days while espousing his positions on gay marriage and gays in the military.

But Ron Paul wasn't the man Babeu was backing for president while in the closet. Up until a few days ago he was campaigning for Romney as Romney's Arizona campaign co-chair. Romney wants a federal marriage amendment -- one of the most most anti-libertarian policies in this election campaign and something to which Ron Paul is staunchly opposed. And Romney was opposed to repealing DADT (even though he's now content to let it be). Battling Santorum's surge, Romney has been pushing a thoroughly anti-gay line, attacking gay marriage at every turn and talking about "traditional" values.

It's amazing how coming out of the closet has propelled Sheriff Babeu to publicly espouse a whole other brand of Republicanism than the one he was embracing just days ago.

It's just one example of how the closet corrupts -- and how coming out liberates.

Because he was hiding his sexual orientation, Babeu wasn't out in the gay community, meeting people publicly and being comfortable with who he is. He was online looking for secret hook-ups and putting his career at risk by sending his naked photos to strangers. Nothing at all wrong with looking for sex online, but you have to wonder how much of it Babeu would be doing if he was simply able to be open about being gay.

And then there's the alleged threat of deportation of Jose Orozco, the former boyfriend, if he spoke about their gay relationship. If true, this would not be the first time a politician with a secret tried to silence someone through intimidation.

The closet does a lot of damage to an individual's self-esteem, living a lie and feeling less than others. But the combination of the closet and power is dangerous -- not just to the individual, but to many others.

Justin Huang: Asian Men With Balls: The Sociosexual Implications Of Linsanity

2012-02-22T16:36:00Z

I didn't pay much attention to Jeremy Lin until I realized he was getting me laid.

Story of my life: my insecurities take the form of mild to moderate narcissism and I ignore a cultural sensation -- the Asian Obama, if you think about it -- until it directly becomes pertinent to my sex life.

But there this pretty boy, whom I considered far out of my league, stood in front of me, offering to buy me a drink at Akbar, a trendy gay dive in the Silverlake neighborhood of Los Angeles.

The boy, whom I'll call Tim, was, I think, mixed-race, and generally too attractive for me. (I tend to like gruff guys, anyway, the type who look like they can take a punch.) But it's always pleasant when an Adonis turns out to be good conversation, and after a few drinks, I asked him what he was looking for.

"To be honest," Tim replied, taking a swig of Anchor Steam, "I've been on an Asian kick ever since Linsanity. I think he's so hot, and I'm surprised I've never been with an Asian guy before."

Normally I don't like it when guys bring up my race when they're hitting on me. Without question, race is usually a major component of sexual chemistry (and I certainly have my own preferences), but there's no easier way to feel like a piece of meat than when you're being compared to an anime character. But this was different. And it was entirely new to me.

I was being likened to an all-American mainstream superstar, not a niche fetish.

Since then, I've gotten wing-manned by Linsanity on several more occasions. On my Adam4Adam account, I have a picture posted that features me clutching a strategically placed basketball. (I took this picture as one of the subjects of a photography project called Sexy Geeks.) The photo shoot was taken months before Jeremy's Shakespearean rise to meteoric stardom, when the image of an Asian man clutching a basketball was meant to be a critique on societal stereotypes. How quickly things change.

Now, I'd gotten no fewer than 30 messages on Adam4Adam that directly comment on the basketball picture, gushing about Jeremy Lin.

I haven't really paid attention to the NBA since the end of the Golden Age of the Lakers in 2004. And the only reason I paid attention to that was because of the diva bitch fight that was the Kobe/Shaq rivalry. ("Just make out already!" I'd yell at the screen.) But this Jeremy Lin figure was ramping up my sex life, and I was curious as to why. So I Googled him.

On paper, Jeremy Lin and I have a lot in common. We are both American-born. We're both from good Christian families; we both were stellar students in school; we both grew up in California. Like my mom and dad, his parents came from Taiwan with hopes of a better future for their kids. Like my maternal grandparents, his maternal grandparents fled China to Taiwan during Mao Zedong's takeover.

But the similarities end there. I was confused. Was it really just skin deep, this sudden spike in interest? Or is something greater at work here?

You see, I grew up completely devoid of any role models that I could physically identify with. I am a thoroughly Americanized Asian man, but I've always felt that when it comes to my identity, I am an army of one. I feel marginalized by the stereotypes thrust upon me, even defensive. The image I present -- one that I believe makes me a serious contender in my social surroundings -- I've carefully cultivated myself, without a face to base it on.

But now we have Jeremy. He's two years younger than me, and while I'm a bit past the age of having role models, I'm quite happy that the younger generation has him to look up to.

It helps that Jeremy Lin is indeed quite handsome, with a megawatt smile and a killer body, and, even better, in interviews he seems to be a humble and grounded guy. He's also openly Christian, so middle America will eat him right up with extra gravy.

And while the rumors of a fling with Kim Kardashian seem at first to just be eye-roll-worthy tabloid fodder, you've got to realize that she has been linked to a whole roster of male sex icons, from Nick Lachey to Gabriel Aubry to Reggie Bush. In a social context, Jeremy Lin's sexuality is acknowledged in a titillating manner. Whereas before him the sexuality of Asian men had long been ignored or even ridiculed by American pop culture, Jeremy Lin could very well be the first true Asian-American stud.

And what are the implications of this cultural messiah? Yes, first we're going to get all the bad puns, ranging from corny to hilariously offensive. But beyond that, Linsanity could very well redefine the Asian-American man as a sexually acknowledged being. Frankly put, our basketball whiz kid has given the rest of us balls. (Hey, who said I couldn't join the bad pun train?)

Because sex is an aspirational sport. We're hardwired to desire the likeness of success; it's a remnant of our primordial survival skills mixed with pop culture. It's why I have a huge crush on my neighbor who looks just like Ewan McGregor, because I associate his face with that of my favorite movie star. And it's why Tim (the aforementioned pretty boy) suddenly was made aware of my sexual potential as a mate. He's now been given context in the muscled form of an NBA superstar.

In this sense, Linsanity applies not just to me, but to all Asian men, regardless of where they fall on the sexual orientation spectrum. You see, blond twinks have David Beckham, and we have Jeremy Lin.

Linsanity is a welcome phenomenon; I don't think any athlete has gotten this much love since pre-zombie-Ambien-sex Tiger Woods, and I think it foretells a future where the Asian influence on the world extends beyond, "Oh, they're good at math, aren't they?" I'm sure there are many Jeremy Lins out there, and in due time they will emerge, as well.

And the result of these monumental shifts in the tectonic plates of global pop culture? I'll get laid. Progress!

This blog originally appeared on Justin Huang's personal site, I Am Yellow Peril.

Laurence Watts: NOH8 On The Hill: 10 Members Of Congress Pose For Marriage Equality (PHOTOS)

2012-02-22T15:55:00Z

On Feb. 15 Adam Bouska, Jeff Parshley, and I were in Washington, D.C. for "NOH8 on the Hill," the exclusive NOH8 photo session we set up especially for members of Congress. We thought we might be able to persuade a couple of Congressmen to take part. This is an election year, after all. What actually happened exceeded our wildest expectations.

By the end of the day, 10 members of Congress had posed for NOH8 portraits. Ten! You can see their pictures in the slideshow below and read the statements of support they gave to us to issue with their photos. With anti-equality politicians currently talking out loud about constitutional marriage amendments, reinstating DADT, and the like, I cannot overemphasize how important and refreshing it is to see 10 of our elected officials stand up and visibly demonstrate their support for equality. The statements they've issued for us to publish with their photos are powerful. I'm not ashamed to say they bring a lump to my throat.

Importantly, these 10 members of Congress represent not only districts on the East and West Coasts but the states in between, as well: California, Oregon, Colorado, Ohio, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Four are men, six are women, and only one identifies as LGBT.

I would like to give special mention to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, whose early commitment to taking part gave us the confidence to go ahead with the shoot. He became the first member of Congress to pose for a NOH8 photo when we took his photo early on the morning of Feb. 15. The rest of the day was spent waiting for meetings to end, votes to be taken, and opportunity to present itself. We passed some of the time watching CSPAN in the hotel room we'd rented for the day and by chance got to watch Rep. Earl Blumenauer deliver an impassioned speech on the House floor. Half an hour later he was standing in front of us with a NOH8 transfer on his face, posing for Adam.

Although all 10 of the members of Congress who took part in NOH8 on the Hill are Democrats, I would like to highlight that Adam, Jeff, and I reached out to Republicans and Democrats alike. It is unfortunately a simple statement of fact to record that no Republicans took us up on our offer to have a NOH8 photo taken.

Rather than talk about those who didn't take part, however, I want to highlight those who did. Look at their photos and read their statements. Read Congresswoman Barbara Lee say, "Hate does not belong in our communities, families, schools, or the workplace, and certainly not in our government." Read Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's statement, in which she says, "I believe this is the defining civil rights struggle of our time -- where you stand today on marriage equality will determine how you are judged by history." Not only did these men and women take time out of their busy schedules to take part in NOH8 on the Hill, but they take time out of every day to effect the change they want to see in the world. They lobby, they speak, and, most importantly, they vote.

In addition to the members of Congress who took part in NOH8 on the Hill, there are two more people I would like to thank: Adam Bouska and Jeff Parshley. These two men, and the wider team back at NOH8 headquarters, do a truly amazing job for our community. The NOH8 Campaign is truly extraordinary, and I encourage everyone who believes in equality to take part when next a NOH8 open shoot comes to a city near you.

PHOTOS:

Crystal Bell: 'Glee' Recap: Rachel's Wedding Leads To Shock Ending

2012-02-22T03:38:01Z

Note: Do not read on if you have not seen Season 3, Episode 14 of Fox's "Glee," entitled "On My Way."

For an episode that was supposed to be all about Regionals, "Glee" flipped a switch on its audience and, instead, turned out an episode that I don't think anyone saw coming.

Suicide attempt? Check. A potentially fatal car accident? Check. Regionals win? Who cares!

"On My Way" managed to fit several important story lines into about 42 minutes, and while I wish they would have trimmed some of the Regionals fat (I mean, does anyone really care about Regionals anymore?), I'm happy that Dave Karofsky was brought back from oblivion, bringing to light one of the more tragic realities that gay teenagers face.

In a cruel sense of poetic justice, the tormenter became the tormented as Dave Karofsky had to deal with the outcome of being seen with Kurt at Breadstix. He was bullied, emotionally and physically. His mother even told him that he could be "cured" from his "disease."

Karofsky decided that the only way to escape his pain would be to commit suicide. It's an emotionally heavy scene, and I have to applaud Max Adler for doing such an amazing job.

I was reading some of the early comments on Twitter, and I was shocked by how many people called this scene "unrealistic." They think that because he was only bullied once, it's unrealistic for him to try and kill himself.

Are you kidding me? It only takes one hurtful act to change the way people feel about themselves, and whether he was bullied for one day or one hundred days, that's not the point. The point is that he felt so alone, so hurt and so awful that he tried to kill himself -- and that is never okay.

While I applaud "Glee" for using Karofsky's story line to drive home this message, I do think that it should have had more screen time. "On My Way" felt more like a PSA. It plugged everything from The Trevor Project to Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation.

Honestly, I would have preferred if Karofsky's story line would have been the focus of the entire episode. Why did we have to spend 10 minutes watching everyone sing at Regionals? Why were Regionals even necessary? So that we could see how Sebastian changed his devious ways in light of Karofsky's tragedy? Or so we could see New Directions take home eternal show choir glory? To me, it all felt so unnecessary.

There was a heaviness throughout the entire episode. At one point, I truly thought that Karofsky was going to try and kill himself again, only to succeed in the end. The scene between him and Kurt was almost too perfect.

Thankfully, Kurt is the only character who didn't get caught up in Regionals hoopla. He was the only one that managed to place the importance of Karofsky's suicide attempt above winning Regionals.

The best scene in the entire episode is when Kurt visits Karofsky in the hospital. "I'm really happy that you're alive, David," says Kurt. "Yeah, me too," replies Karofsky. Dave Karofsky truly looks helpless, and it's absolutely heartbreaking.

It's also a powerful image, seeing Kurt support his former tormenter. There's a reason that Kurt has always been my favorite "Glee" character, and this scene highlights it perfectly. Kurt, unlike Rachel and Finn, has grown tremendously over the past three seasons.

Kurt tells Karofsky to imagine his life in 10 years, when he's living the life of his dreams. Karofsky imagines his life as a successful sports agent, with a handsome partner and a young son. It's a truly beautiful moment between the two.

If only that moment wouldn't have been overshadowed by "Glee" next shocking -- and heartbreaking -- drama. Remember when I said that I felt this ominous force throughout the episode? Well, I had no idea that "Glee" could go from depressing to downright bleak in a 42-minute span.

Amidst winning Regionals, suicide attempts and Sue being pregnant (yes, you read that correctly), we learn that Rachel and Finn are serious about the whole marriage thing, So serious, in fact, that they decide, in light of Karofsky almost dying, that they want to get married immediately after Regionals.

Even though their parents are strongly against it, the entire glee club comes to the court house to support them.

After having a change of heart -- and being welcomed back into the Cheerios -- Quinn decides that she too wants to be a part of the Berry-Hudson wedding. Unfortunately, Quinn never makes it to the wedding.

While answering an urgent text from Rachel (It read: WHERE ARE YOU???), Quinn gets blindsided by an oncoming car. End scene. It certainly gives a new meaning to the episode title "On My Way."

This is where "Glee" has its second PSA moment of the night: Kids, don't text and drive!

Now, I'm not going to sugarcoat this "Glee" fans, but there is a chance that Quinn Fabray might not make it. It's a shame, especially after how much they've redeemed her character in the last few episodes. But, then again, maybe that was the writers' plan all along. After all, it looks like actress Dianna Agron isn't signing on for Season 4.

This did feel like a sendoff for poor Quinn, who's been put through more drama in three seasons than Rachel's dads during a Barbra Streisand marathon.

There was this brilliant conversation between Quinn and Sue toward the end where Sue told Quinn that she admired her.

"You proved that it's never too late to turn your life around." I mean, talk about foreshadowing. Just when Quinn finally got her life together -- she's going to Yale, she made up with Rachel, she's a Cheerio again -- something happens that throws a wrench in her plans.

Maybe death is too heavy for "Glee," but then again, they did kill off Sue's sister in Season 2. However, I don't think the writers actually have the guts to kill one of their main characters. Like Sue said, I think that she'll once again have to turn her life around.

Looks like teen Jesus finally found his way on the glee club. It's only a matter of time before Mercedes and Sam recruit him in light of Quinn's accident. I can already see the God Squad (the moral compass of McKinley) praying around her beside, à la "Grilled Cheesus" in Season 2.

Because I don't feel like any of the other plot points are even as remotely important as the above, here are a few other "Glee" observations from "On My Way."

All Rachel really cares about is winning Regionals and getting into N.Y.A.D.A. Is this really surprising? Why is Finn even marrying her? Do they even have any concept of real life? Where are they going to live? How are they going to support themselves? Okay, I'm through acting like my Jewish grandmother. I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to care about these two. Their actions make me anxious.

We find out that Rory has never tasted peanut butter. Yes, this actually is a real plot point from tonight's episode, and it's Damian McGinty's best acting since "Pot O' Gold." Coincidently, McGinty had never had a spoonful of peanut butter until filming that episode. (Fun fact: He has yet to ever have a banana, and yes, I'm officially a Twitter stalker.)

In a true "Breakfast Club" moment, Mr. Schue reveals that he attempted suicide at a young age. Now, I would have found this to be a more poignant moment if Mr. Schue hadn't started his lesson by giving Rory a spoonful of peanut butter (and if the writers hadn't directly stolen this exact scenario from "The Breakfast Club").

Sue is pregnant.

Sebastian goes from major jerk to remorsefully nice Warbler in less than 20 minutes. It turns out that he was a total d-bag to Karofsky at Scandals -- Lima's gay bar -- and now he feels guilty.

The Troubletones make a triumphant return, and the New Directions win Regionals (duh).

Notable Quotables:
"Well, if it isn't an old Barbra Streisand and a young Betty White. Where is gay Cyclops? Still stumbling in?"
-- Sebastian

"That's show choir terrorism."
-- Rachel

"I, Sue Sylvester, am with child."
-- Sue

"In the last week, you either enjoyed a really delicious curry or received a hug from principal Figgins."
-- Sue

"I want to be there to see 'Sex and the City Part 3.'"
-- Sugar

"I just want a song."
-- Tina

"i admire you for all of the ways you're not like me. You proved that it's never too late to turn your life around."
-- Sue

"It isn't going to be easy. There are going to be days where life just sucks, but you're going to get through this."
-- Kurt

"We screwed up big time. We tried playing these reverse psychology games on them."
-- Burt

"Even Patti Lupone herself couldn't talk Rachel out of marrying Finn."
-- Hiram

James Wharton: Who Died and Made the Church God?

2012-02-22T00:00:00Z

Gay marriage is coming... And thank the lord!

When I had my civil partnership in 2010, it was simply the happiest day of my life. My husband and I sealed our relationship, forever, in the company of the people we loved the most, with words we had chosen especially for that occasion. Dressed in full state uniform, usually reserved for the Royal Family, I married my man proudly and with true meaning.

But would I have chosen a religious ceremony, if I'd have had the choice?
You bet I would!

Why should a man and a women have the exclusive right, and indeed honour, of exchanging their lifelong promise to each other in the presence of God? What makes me different? I say my prayers. I join in at 'heterosexual' weddings by wishing newlyweds the very best, even saying a prayer for them. I even swore an oath to God that I'd protect Queen and Country as a young 16-year-old boy facing military service. Why shouldn't I be afforded the same respect from a faith that I have served so well?

The answer is... I should be. And I'm very confident that people like me - a gay person who chooses to get married, soon will be allowed to do so. Just because a few people who have appointed themselves spokespeople of the divine have to drag us through a quite hurtful protest about 'their' rights along the way. What about our rights?

Lets think back to 2004 when the Civil Partnership Act was being introduced. Those same bigots who exclaim our 'lifestyle choices' infringe their human rights, kicked up exactly the same fuss as we see the Coalition For Marriage (C4M) doing today. Even an (Ex) Archbishop has thrown himself wholeheartedly into the argument, leading C4M's calls for legal intervention. I wonder if they have asked for 'Divine Intervention' yet? I bet you they've tried.

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail has all but publicly announced its support of the group, describing it as 'a new grassroots organisation', and even permitted (Ex) Archbishop, Lord Carey, to blog about it on their own Mail blogging site, RightMinds.

So what is the problem? What will it actually mean to Lord Carey if this act goes through?

Can anybody offer a fair and just answer to this question? Is this going to affect straight people who are getting married? Well according to the C4M homepage, it just might, and one or two other things also... "If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"

So, as it states... if gay marriage is passed, straight people are going to be out of work. Nothing like a threat to jobs in a time of increasing job losses. Some very straight forward individuals, the sort that read the Daily Mail perhaps, will read that and actually believe it. And C4M know this... that's why they have put it in there! And what about the image they have chosen to use as their campaign logo? A white man, a white woman, and their two children -one boy and one girl, of course.

I'm very grateful to have a number of gay friends who have either gone fully through the adoption process and now provide a very safe home and environment to a child that was once not so fortunate to have such a thing, and a number of friends who are still awaiting either approval or child placement. This sight reflects family life in the 19th century. As do the views of Lord Carey.

Thanks to a number of high profile individuals, including prime minister David Cameron, there is a growing likelihood and belief that C4M's petition and campaigning will not deter the bill being passed in the House of Lords; but with the views of Lord Carey and other faith leaders across the land, it makes the prospect uncertain, still.

Lord Carey and his C4M bunch should be more sympathetic to the realities of the modern world in 2012. Instead of circulating 19th century propaganda and outdated ideologies. More so, they should think a little more about how this makes other human beings feel. If they enjoy bringing stress and misery to other men and women; if they enjoy discriminating against other people just on the basis of who they love, and if they want to make the church even more excluding of individuals than it already is, then they ought to be spending more time and energy questioning their own faiths.

Charlotte Robinson: LISTEN: Marriage Equality USA's Ned Flaherty Talks 2012 Prospects For Gay Marriage

2012-02-21T22:48:00Z

I talked with Ned Flaherty, Project Manager Election 2012 for the national LGBT organization Marriage Equality USA, to get an update on LGBT relationship protections in America. Ned has created a significant map for Marriage Equality USA, revealing the encouraging news that 42 percent of Americans now live in the 21 states that offer some form of legal recognition at the state level for same-gender relationships. The map illustrates the states offering partial equality, as well as itemizing the 30 states where various bans on marriage by law, constitution, or both remain in effect.

Ned Flaherty lives in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is celebrating its eighth anniversary in May. When asked what his reaction has been to the recent news of gay marriage passing in Washington state, Prop 8 being found unconstitutional in California by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the possibility of marriage equality passing in Maryland, Flaherty stated:

I expect that every state that passes marriage equality in any significant way is going to have the same experience we've had for the last eight years in Massachusetts -- and that is, first of all, none of the dire consequences threatened by the religious evangelicals or the right-wing Republicans have ever occurred here. The second thing is a couple of dramatic improvements. One is there's more business revenue and more tax revenue into the state government, simply as the result of the additional marriage business going on here. And the third thing is Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates now in the nation. The nation hasn't had a divorce rate as low as Massachusetts for decades. So I think that among those states you mentioned and the others that you didn't mention, as they all move closer towards marriage equality, they're going to find more business, more government tax revenue, and none of the frightening harms that the equality opponents always talk about.

LISTEN:

Listen to more interviews with LGBTQ leaders, allies, and celebrities at OUTTAKE VOICES™.

Download interviews on iTunes.

Adam Bink: Prop 8's Backers Say They Will Seek A Full 9th Circuit Review: What This Means For The Case

2012-02-21T21:55:00Z

Metro Weekly reports that Charles Cooper, lead attorney for the proponents of Prop 8, has informed them that his team will ask the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the three-judge decision that earlier this month struck down the marriage ban as unconstitutional. Metro Weekly breaks down what happens next:

Usually, en banc review involves all of the active judges on the court, but the Ninth Circuit -- due to the more than 20 active judges on the circuit -- has adopted a unique "limited en banc" procedure in which all the active Ninth Circuit judges vote whether en banc consideration will be given. That will be the request made by today's filing.

If a majority of the court supports en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

Cooper told the publication that his team would make the official filing later this afternoon, before today's deadline for rehearing.

As written here on The Huffington Post this morning, the proponents' decision to seek en banc review at the Ninth Circuit means that the stay on Judge Walker's decision is extended indefinitely until the appeals court decides whether or not to review the panel decision.

When the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling earlier this month, Chris Stoll of the National Center for Lesbian Rights shared with us what the process of rehearing might involve:

It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the 20-something active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral argument and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.

The proponents' decision today means that the road to a final decision on Prop 8 just got much longer. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs' attorneys have made it clear that they will seek to have the stay lifted, now that Prop 8 has been struck down by two separate courts. In the Ninth Circuit's own guidelines, the court says that an en banc rehearing should only be heard if 1) there is a need for "uniformity" in the court's decision, 2) the matter is a "question of exceptional importance," or 3) the ruling "directly conflicts with an existing opinion by another court of appeals or the Supreme Court." The proponents are likely to argue that the Prop 8 case is a matter of "exceptional importance," but they may face an uphill battle convincing a majority of the Ninth Circuit that the appeals panel's decision needs to be reconsidered, especially given how narrow the ruling was.

Our side has already won twice in court, and the other side's weak arguments show little promise of becoming stronger with time.

This post was co-written with Prop8TrialTracker.com's Jacob Combs. You can follow updates on the latest moves at Prop8TrialTracker.com to keep you up to date as we move forward to the next step.