I read a lot about human evolution, specifically how our ancestors evolved into modern humans and how we determine the dividing point between animals and humans. Some say the change came when our ancestors began to create art, others say when they formed family structures and began supporting the adults and children within those structures.

We often think about species of the past, such as the Neanderthals, as being so extremely far removed from our modern, advanced species. They did go extinct, after all. We picture hulking, stooping beasts, dragging women around by the hair, swinging clubs, void of advanced intellect. We imagine that they were did not survive because they could not evolve and adapt like Homo sapiens – they could not modernize. We actually know better than that Hollywood dramatized image of stupid cave-dwellers now. We know that Neanderthals were much like us, so much so that there is genetic proof that some of our ancestors interacted and bred with them.

I was shocked to learn that many modern day humans have Neanderthal DNA (although I found it somewhat humorous that the only ethnic group that didn’t interbreed with Neanderthals are peoples descended from Africa, people who had suffered from generations of unfair accusations of being “less modern” or “more primitive” which was largely at the root of slavery in the United States.) But, what I was more shocked to think about is how even in our modern society there is this constant steam of political and social issues that reflect a prehistoric attitude. I cannot understand how some of these beliefs have not been left in the dust with our Neanderthal cousins – like the discussion about whether or not women can make their own decisions.

Apparently Michelle Bachman can’t – or perhaps chooses not to. She said in 2006 that her husband told her to get a degree in tax law, even though she didn’t want to, and then to run for Congress, and she had to do it. He’s her husband and she should be submissive. This is a woman who wants to be President of the United States, but believes its her duty to be submissive to her husband. Sooo…why isn’t he running for President?

Also reactions to the new test that can determine the sex of an unborn baby at 7 weeks. People are seriously acting like this new test will cause women to abort babies left and right because they aren’t happy with the sex of this child – so we shouldn’t allow this test because it will cause women to go abortion crazy. A woman who wants to have a child will have a child regardless of sex, and a woman who does not want to have a child would terminate regardless of sex. These people are pretending that the new test doesn’t have an advantage in finding sex-linked diseases. In places like China or India, where often having a girl child is unfavorable – the test won’t make a difference. That child will be a girl or a boy at 7 weeks, 12 weeks and 30 weeks.

Presidential hopeful and overall jackass Rick Perry passed the law that required doctors to show a woman a sonogram and make her listen to her babies heart beat before obtaining an abortion, as thought women who are making the difficult decision of abortion doesn’t know what’s going on inside her body. Some how the state governor knows better than she does whether or not she wants to carry her baby to term.

How is it possible that attitudes like this continue to exist in our “modern” society? Primitive thoughts and behaviors that perpetuate a belief that women cannot think for themselves, cannot make their own decisions, must be submissive to their husbands and on and on, are beyond our worst creative renderings of the uncivilized Neanderthals. Maybe that 1-4% of Neanderthal blood is keeping us in the past, or maybe they understood equality better than some Americans do. Its hard to tell which.

We remember when it was more common to frame women as helpless and men as caretakers, like in this commercial from a bygone era, but times have changed…right?

Photo Credit: Wikicommons

The slippery slope logic of modern reasoning has provided ample cud for conservatives and the religious to chew on for decades. Marriage equality defenders have argued vehemently against the suggestion that obtaining marriage equality is the first step in the inevitable degradation of our country’s moral fiber, but for some reason this “logic” always seems to come back up. The logic is as follows: The legalization of “gay marriage” destroys the “definition of marriage” as a union between one man and one woman, kicking open the door to allow the legalization of pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy.

I’d guess that the majority of Americans abhor these acts, which is why it is a problem when people like Catholic Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, warn us that marriage equality in New York is the “latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, [and] that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity.”

Comments like this cause people who might otherwise defend marriage equality to rethink about what sort of Pandora’s box they might be opening that allows old ladies to marry their cats.

Among the Just Say No to Expanding the Definition of Marriage folks, is a small minority of dissenters. These folks support this imaginary Pandora’s Box result and hope to benefit from it. Luckily, most of these arguments are weak, at best. It’s easy remind NAMBLA supporters that a child is not a consenting individual and thus cannot make the decision to engage in a relationship with an adult any more than he or she can vote or join the US military.  And it’s illegal. Very illegal.

The same logic model can be shared with the fear mongers who try to convince Americans that legal bestiality is swift on the heels of DOMA’s repeal. Animals can’t provide consent, so there is much doubt that a sex with animals case is moving into the Supreme court any time soon.

Debating these ignorant prophecies has always been easy for me – because to me the difference between two consenting adults of any gender and an adult and a child/turtle seeking a marriage license is pretty darn clear – but when I read of the recent lawsuit from a famous polygamist it was harder for me to come to a firm conclusion.

As gay marriage rights activists, we support ourselves on the raft that there is no “definition of marriage” to defend. We rally because two men can be incredible parents to a child and because in a sea of non-traditional, blended and broken families, gay parents might be even more stable than the families of the other neighborhood kids. We stand behind marriage equality because what we do in our bedrooms is none of anyone’s business. Because we are consenting adults who deserve equal rights under the law.

The lawsuit, filed by the star of the popular TLC  reality TV show Sister Wives, Kody Brown, “will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses”  (New York Times).

So, really this is just a man and a few women living together in a house raising children. What’s really so illegal about that? They aren’t asking for polygamy to be legalized – they are asking for their private business (sited as “unconstitutional intrusions on the ‘intimate conduct’ of consenting adults” in Lawrence v. Texas) to be kept private.

I personally have no interest in engaging in a polygamous union, or anything of the sort.

Part of me also fears the prominence of misogyny in a single male, multiple female household – but no marriage, partnership or relationship is free from that possibility.

I know that most polygamists are Morm0n, and that acknowledging the act is akin to governmentally condoning a religious belief, but we’ve never restricted Catholic or Christian rites or traditions governmentally. In fact, I think we have an amendment about that.

Maybe I’m just getting more liberal as I age, but I can’t really find a strong argument against Kody Brown.

Can you?

There have no doubt been setbacks and knockdowns for the LGBT rights movement, but what I witnessed yesterday was definitely a glass half-full moment. Thursday in downtown Chicago, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and newly-elected mayor Rahm Emmanuel attended the civil unions of 36 couples on a beautiful Windy City morning.

I had the great opportunity to see both the signing of this bill earlier in the year and this mass civil union ceremony presided over by five judges, with the couples having their ceremonies in waves. The most touching part was the number of people who lined up around the gates of the Park, complete strangers, gay and straight, of all ages and types there to cheer on the couples. Yes, there were the requisite protesters, but in a number I could count on one hand, and they were the ones who seemed out of place among so much love and joy.

I share the opinion of many that it is not until full marriage equality, and not just civil unions, is a right across this country that there will there be equality in terms of legal recognitions of same-sex partnerships. And yes, I also agree that it is unfair to classify these unions under a different name than marriage, and sets them on a level that is still unequal with opposite-sex unions. But nonetheless, I believe that every step toward equality is valid and provides hope. An all-or-nothing attitude will lead to nothing but little accomplishment, and for me to stand up and say that I think that we should accept nothing but full marriage equality continues to deny the practical reasons that many couples, right now and today, want to not only validate their love with a form of recognition by their government, but also for the very real legal protections and realities that it provides for them.

No one wants to be treated like a second-class citizen, and not calling these unions marriage is unfair, but it is a move in the right direction. These steps in the right direction, one at a time, further the movement towards full acceptance and equality in all realms. For the first time in the history of its polling on same-sex marriage, the majority of Americans are in favor of such unions. The chart that shows the change in opinion is extraordinary to look at.

Yes, there may be more setbacks, but I really believe that we come closer and closer to a recognition that is only right and fair. One day (I pray sooner than later), marriage equality will be the law of the land, but until then, gains like the one I witnessed this week are a welcome sign of a hopeful future.

Submission by Andrew S., TNG contributor

So now that the ‘Fuck Ruben Diaz’ writing contest has gotten the attention of the senator himself, a few  things should be made perfectly clear. The organizers of this contest condemn, unequivocally, the death threats that have been made against Senator Diaz. Furthermore, it should be said that we do not bear any animus whatsoever toward people of faith, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or, um, Wiccan. Some of us, in fact, are people of faith ourselves. But Diaz, in a press release responding to this contest, has very predictably framed it as part of an ongoing assault by ‘seething extremists’ bent on impinging the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriage.

To repeat an argument that has been made ad infinitum in the media and in statehouses and courthouses across the country, what the GLBT community is asking for is civil marriage, not its religious counterpart. We do not propose to march on Senator Diaz’s congregation and demand that, in his capacity as minister, he sanctify our unions. We simply ask that the state of New York, to which we contribute equally as tax-payers and citizens, provide our families with the same legal protections that are granted to heterosexual couples. It is a simple argument and a powerful one and, as evidenced by several polls showing that support for marriage equality is now the majority position not only in liberal New York, but nationally, it is winning.

However, I will concede Senator Diaz’s point that the contest is ‘vulgar’. When one is confronted with a politician whose most salient contribution to civic discourse is the fomenting, both directly and indirectly, of an atmosphere of intolerance one cannot always take the high road. Occasionally, taking the low road is just the ticket. Sometimes, you just have to say, ‘fuck it’, you have to take a break from trying to reason with people like Tony Perkins and Brian Brown and, yes, Ruben Diaz. So why not have a laugh at their expense? That’s ultimately what the ‘Fuck Ruben Diaz’ writing contest is all about. It’s not political in any meaningful sense of the word, it’s not about winning hearts and minds – it’s about taking a break from all that shit.

So even though the contest is called ‘Fuck Ruben Diaz’, I think I speak for everyone at The New Gay New York, when I say that we don’t despise Ruben Diaz, just what he stands for. As Senator Diaz is fond of saying: love the sinner, hate the sin.

Original Post Announcing Writing Contest – READ HERE

Be thankful I didn't go with my idea to post a picture of Spiro Agnew

“Built a nation dedicated to liberty,
Justice, and equality
Does it look that way to you? It doesn’t look that way to me
It’s the sickest joke I know”

–“’Merican” by the Descendants

I have lived in Maryland for most of my life; I go to college in this state and am registered to vote here. Admittedly, I have a kind of hate/tolerate/kind-of-like relationship with the state, but it seems like anytime I find something semi-decent or cool here, something arises to remind me why I have spent most of my time here despising it.

There are some nice and even awesome things about Maryland.  We have an interesting history, the liberal powerhouse known as Senator Barbara Mikulski, John Waters and his films (all of them set in the Baltimore area), seafood markets, and some rather good colleges.  Plus, some really cool people came from Maryland, such as Thurgood Marshall, Paul Reed Smith (he stopped by my high school once), Edgar Allan Poe (which Baltimore loves to bank on), and Kweisi Mfume.  Unfortunately, there are many lousy things about Maryland, like the batshit crazy weather, an undeniable Catholic influence, and the people who are STILL mad at Abe Lincoln for not letting Maryland possibly become a Confederate state. I would also like to apologize on behalf of the state for foisting Spiro Agnew, Michael Steele, and Good Charlotte into the national spotlight, but one of the lousiest things about Maryland lately had been the treatment of its GLBTQ citizens, such as myself.

As some of you who live around here know, the Maryland State Assembly pretty much killed the bills on Equal Marriage and Gender Identity Rights. Tactics got really ugly on the Equal Marriage Bill; hate literature was being passed around to delegates and sometimes FROM delegates:

The committee also considered a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It is sponsored by Anne Arundel County Republican Delegate Don Dwyer.

Dwyer has sent out mailings urging constituents of lawmakers who support same sex marriage to call their representative and get them to change their mind.

Collins reports the mailings include samples of school curriculum that Dwyer feels will be taught in schools if same sex marriage is legalized.

One lawmaker who received the mailings told Collins the mailings were “graphic.”

(I must say that, unfortunately, Delegate Dwyer is one of the delegates from my county, which is quite conservative).

With the Transgender Anti-discrimination Bill, it was the fact that it came on the heels of the failed marriage bill, and the fact that it was so flawed that the Maryland trans community was extremely divided on the bill itself.

I wish I could stop and say that it is only the political treatment of LGBTQ Marylanders that makes me hang my head in shame. The violence against Maryland’s LGBTQ community is deplorable and the track record with finding and prosecuting those who murder trans people is bleak, to say the least. In a previous piece, I wrote about the murder of Tyra Trent, a Baltimore trans woman. Even more recently, another crime against a trans person in the Baltimore area has been committed. A trans woman was horrifically beaten by an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old in a Baltimore-area McDonald’s for trying to use the restroom. An employee filmed the event and put it up in the Internet. Both were appalling and sickening events that happened not only in my state, but not all that far away from where I am currently typing this piece, which, as a Maryland trans person, only increases my fears and feelings of discomfort.

Maryland, could you for once try to surprise me in a good way rather than make me feel ashamed?

Larry Kramer, legendary and cranky gay-rights gadfly, is still mad, but this time instead of directing his righteous discontent at the establishment, he’s speaking out against gay youth.

Kramer’s 1985 play “The Normal Heart” opened recently on Broadway, and he spoke with Salon.com for an interview about how his views and the world around him have(n’t) changed. He spoke about how he feels that younger gays are apathetic. His most telling quotation discussed gay identity:

“I am a gay person before I’m anything else. I’m a gay person before I’m a white person, before I’m a Jew, before I’m a writer, before I’m American, anything. That is my most identifying characteristic and I don’t find many people who would say that.”

To me, this is the basis of why I don’t agree with Kramer’s criticism. When I hesitated to come out in high school, my deepest fear was not homelessness or violence, social exclusion or AIDS; it was losing my identity. I thought to myself, “I am so many things, I don’t want to give it all up just to be ‘gay.’” Part of this fear was based on a desperate shortage of positive gay role models, but part of it was also a response to attitudes within the gay community. I didn’t want to have become a different person, lose all my friends and my interests, to become a Gay Man instead.

In earlier times, I think the attitude of “you’re in or you’re out” 100 percent gay identity made more sense. The dangers were more grave and there was not much place to be “gay AND [Fill in the blank],” whether the blank was “father,” “lawyer,” or “football fan.” But I think the very core of my perceptions about my own homosexuality (and incidentally the core of the attitudes on this blog) is that it’s just another part of me. I am not gay first. I’m not a contant political agitator or a Fire Island circuit boy. I’m gay, but also I’m an American, a man, a New Yorker, and a writer. I don’t feel that being one of these precludes me from seeking happiness by being others as well.

While writing this it’s important to recognize how much our current generation is indebted to the previous waves of out and proud homosexuals who fought and lost so much that we might have this basic right. I am endlessly greatful that I live in a world where the fact that I’m gay is not the most interesting thing about me.

We owe Larry Kramer and his generation a huge debt of gratitude, some of us probably owe them our lives, but that doesn’t mean they can also claim our souls.

I recently attended a town hall meeting hosted by a group that is working to reduce violent crime against DC’s LGBT community. According to statistics quoted by representatives of the group, DC has the highest rate of anti-queer hate crimes in the country. This group, Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence (GLOV), was reformed in recent years after a notable increase in crimes against the community, many of which were reported on and otherwise covered on this site. While I applaud this group’s current initiatives to increase dialog with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and work for better prosecution of crimes against the community, the meeting left me cold.

The most obvious misstep occurred during the first five minutes of the meeting. During the introductions, police officers walked around the room clumsily and noisily handing out pieces of paper. While distracting us from the speakers, these sheets were filled with tips on how we could avoid being victims and contact numbers for the MPD’s Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit. From the second I cast my eyes on the paper, I realized what would be the focus of the meeting: accepting the existence of crimes against the queer community, educating individual members of that community on how to avoid the inevitable and invariable violence attacking us, and how the district and federal courts are using bias enhancements to increase the penalties of the offenders.

I won’t go into too many details about the general flow of the meeting, but I do want to note that I was impressed to see so many police officers in attendance, including MPD Police Chief Cathy Lanier who addressed the audience at length about her role in increasing safety of the community.

Rather, I will address what I perceived the biggest flaw of the meeting, which is that it was only attended by past and “future” victims, those who enforce the laws and those who try the cases. What was missing? Any serious acknowledgment of the real sources of the problem and strategies to address those sources. Who was missing? For starters, the mayor. But perhaps more importantly, representatives from the Office of Planning, to discuss their efforts to ease the friction that comes with the redevelopment of neighborhoods. Representatives from the DC public school system, describing their strategies for not only protecting queer youth but also educating ALL students on the rights of all people to go about their lives in the District of Columbia. Representatives from the faith community, to reassure us that despite any anti-queer messages they may spew from their pulpits, they put God’s message of “love thy neighbor” ahead of Leviticus and thousands of years of selective misinterpretation and transliteration it might have received. How about representatives from any and every District agency that provides services directly to the residents of the District of Columbia, who can use those interactions as “teaching moments” in which even the most subtle queer-friendly messages could be conveyed while services are being provided, from receiving a flu shot to renewing a driver’s license. The safety of queer people or any minority group does not only rest in the hands of police, prosecutors, and that group itself. It rests in the hands of the entire city government and all the city’s religious and charitable organizations. Unfortunately, they haven’t really been informed of this, and apparently neither have the members of GLOV.

The attendees of this meeting felt like, to me, a group of lung cancer patients and their doctors and insurance companies all gathered around talking about surgical options for 90 minutes without anyone mentioning the benefits of quitting smoking.

The issues I raise above were not completely left out of the meeting, but instead were raised first by a young queer black man in the audience. Not likely over 17 years old and dressed in a white tank top and jeans, he stood up and asked what was being done to confront the elders of the District’s longer-term resident communities who teach their youth hatred and aggression towards queer persons. I nearly applauded, but a GLOV member’s response chimed in before the young man even finished talking. And his response was appalling:  Parents and clergy aren’t teaching their community’s youth to be homophobic, but instead only provide silent, tacit approval of these behaviors. How audacious is it to tell a young queer man who could have grown up in the same community that manufactures those currently preying on him and us that his assessment of the origins of the problem is incorrect? How could someone who has not had the experiences of a local DC youth have any idea of the things this young man witnessed and likely experienced first-hand while growing up queer in this city surrounded by parents and other authority figures who were likely actively teaching homophobia to him and the other children of the community?

The most effective solution to a problem is always found in the greater system surrounding it.  The best solution to terrorism is not better screening at airports, nor is the best solution to anti-gay violence better awareness, enforcement and prosecution. Police officers, prosecutors and DC’s queer population will likely continue to chase each other around the city locked in a cycle of bash, arrest, prosecute, rehabilitate, release and repeat: That’s the urban crime and justice system. And the solution to that problem won’t be found within it. Tips for being street smart, higher arrest rates and bias enhancements won’t stop queer folks from being mugged, bashed and killed.

I applaud the efforts of GLOV, the GLLU, MPD and the district and federal attorneys who are working to provide better services to victims of anti-queer violence. But I fear we won’t actually prevent the creation of additional victims until the problems that lie within the bigger system are addressed. It didn’t appear that anyone at the heart of this current movement is looking at the big picture.  Perhaps it’s due to a lack of resources, a lack of understanding, or something else.  However, until those bigger, tougher questions start getting asked, we are all the next victims.

Though the observance was intended to voice support for the rights of victims of all forms of crime, Holder spoke glowingly of Shepard’s relentless advocacy for the rights of hate crimes victims in particular. He cited her son’s murder as a turning point in public outrage over anti-LGBT hate crimes, as well as her role in pressing for the creation of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which drew a loud and unscripted round of applause. In her speech, Shepard briefly recounted the horror and anguish that she and her husband suffered through. She praised the overwhelming support that they received from the Laramie P.D. and the U.S. Department of Justice, which helped them to rise above their feelings of deep frustration at a criminal justice system that seemed, she said, to value the rights of their son’s killers more than those of their son.

Speakers (in order of appearance) -

• Voices of Praise Choir
• Joye Frost – Acting Director, Office for Victims of Crime
• Ronald Machen Jr – U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
• Laurie Robinson – Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs
• Eric Holder – Attorney General of the United States
• Judy Shepard

In solidarity with International Women’s Day and in conjunction with Feminist Coming Out Day, there are many reasons to celebrate women and feminism. Feminist transformations have changed many people’s lives across the globe in perhaps the most revealing yet mundane ways. It can be as revolutionary as realizing one’s position and place in society while on the other hand, it can be as simple as realizing that one is different from another.

The reach and the meaning of feminism are under constant negotiation. At my alma mater, I peer-facilitate an introductory-level women’s studies course where young college kids break into smaller groups and delve into the meaning of feminism. It has been a satisfying experience to see young men and women try to make sense of the theoretical meanings and the reach of feminism in their own respective lives. Some regard feminism as the equation of women to men while others have a more complex and profound definitions, such as “the revolutionary act to realize women are also human.”

Throughout my year as a peer-facilitator, I have also grown to realize how some use the banner of feminism to meet personal ends that appear progressive but actually are a huge step backward from the truly transformative nature of feminism. For example, a common discussion held in my groups alludes to the nature of the 2008 election as a feminist transformation; when America grasped the possibility of a female president in then-Senator Hilary Clinton and Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin; when the possibility of female heads of power was a viable route. But on the other hand, Sarah Palin’s stance on reproductive justice and abortion has severely limited women’s access to choice. So my groups and I reach cross roads and junction points. We have women finally accessing new zeniths of power but also have female candidates who limit choice. Is this feminism?

Hopefully, my groups realize they are allowed to make their decision and depart from these cross roads on their own terms and choose their own truths.

As for myself, I learn with them. Deploying feminism is not only talking about feminism but also realizing how people misuse it. For example, under the umbrella of tolerance, feminism may signify a turning point in societal expectations and outlooks on people and lifestyle. However, tolerance can be used as weapon of preaching hate and violence from one group towards another.

Hence I present you, truetolerance.org. If the name of the website doesn’t beg you to ask what is true tolerance , the message presented on the website will get any queer feminist to react and ask “Really? They’re preaching about tolerance?” It is clear the creators of this website (mis)use the word tolerance to react against many equality initiatives. They believe the queer community is attacking the establishment of family, home, and security. They advocate attacking the queer community in “fact-based ways” AND even explain how one might reverse equality initiatives in their own communities.

What is most surprising is the irony that this organization founded itself under the guise of true tolerance, while there are strains of blatant homophobia passing itself as progressive reform. From deceptive anti-bullying initiatives readily passed off to local governing officials to claims of deceptive queer agenda-based action, the site is a visible attack on the institution of family.

So, here we are. We are at a crossroads. What is your feminism? Is this tolerance or is truetolerance.org using feminism incorrectly?

Last week the conservative and homophobic leaders in Texas were at it again — as if we haven’t experienced enough of discriminatory Texas craziness. A high school student in Corpus Christi tried to organize a Gay-Straight Alliance by gathering 500 signatures and the school board responded by not only rejecting her proposal, but by shutting down all extra-curricular activities at the school.

Really? That is some serious homophobia. The scam here is that by banning all clubs that are not academic (or “curricular”) from campus, they are following a previously ignored rule on the books. This way, that GSA isn’t being blocked because it’s a GSA, it’s blocked because it’s not “curricular.” This is the sort of language and double talk that ends up in state and federal governments as well.   The area’s Superintendent Julie Carbajal has said that there is no chance the district will approve the purposed Gay-Straight Alliance.

The importance of Gay-Straight Alliances is immeasurable and the many heroes in our community include those who work with these programs educating and supporting young people.  I am proud that I have friends who as high school teachers started GSAs; as university professors created policies protecting transgender students in athletics programs; who as residence hall directors acted on Safe Space Planning committees and instructed AIDS Peer Education. These groups are the key to helping young gay or questioning students find information and support. They are also crucial for parents, teachers and community members to learn about LGBTQ issues and what they can do to support and foster the health and success of young people. Texas school leaders are making fools of themselves in front of a nation which is increasingly accepting of individual rights.

Sometimes being an advocate for equality is just so disappointing. Reading news like this is one of those times. I hope school boards and educators across the country take this opportunity to express their support for student organizing – even if just to distance themselves from the hatred and discrimination which flies like a flag over the Lone Star State.

Recently we learned that the Revolution will be televised, but wait “We interrupt history in the making from Cairo to play the newest Lady Gaga!”  That’s how many Facebook newsfeeds would’ve sounded like if they had audio.  Not to mention Twitter and the general queer blogosphere.  As I watched the live ousting of a dictator, others posted passionately about their excitement and how they “loved, loved, LOVED” (or hated) Gaga’s latest.  Clueless or intentionally ignoring events shaking the globe, nearly all of those posts were from fellow queers.  A denied, but ever present, thought came to the forefront of my mind – gays don’t deserve equality. If we exist only in our narrow pop-infested selfish lives and can’t see the greater world then why should the world care about us?

Normally Gaga posts would fall into the “ignore and move on” file, but on Friday they stung like a hive of angry bees.  With too many bees to brush off, I realized I’ve felt these tiny pricks way too often before.  As a denizen of L.A. during the Prop 8 battle, I fought the hard fight (fundraised, cold called, canvassed) and endured the soul crushing defeat.  Not only did the forces of intolerance win, but they were aided and abetted by apathy within the community.  I encountered so many who could care less that their rights were on a ballot.  I heard excuses for not making rallies because there were brunch reservations or couldn’t attend a fundraiser because Ugly Betty was on that night.  I co-hosted a fundraiser with a good friend and although it was a success, he exhausted every avenue to get Katy Perry (fresh off I Kissed a Girl) to perform. It was agreed that to entice the best turnout we needed a pop star.  It proved that preserving our rights and claiming our dignity is less important than basking in the glow of a gayleprety— i.e a gay celebrity and/or a straight celebrity that has a big gay following (Katy Perry, Brittney Spears, etc.)

I’m a political wonk and I don’t expect everyone to share my enthusiasm for Arab revolutions. Wonks care about what others disregard, but thanks to social media queer indifference became painfully evident.  I watched in real time the malaise toward social justice actually perpetuated by the worship of meaningless pop.  The dismal sight propelled the belief “that if it doesn’t entertain us then it doesn’t matter to us.”

Why care about Egypt?  Why care about any oppressed people challenging the status quo?  Why care about women’s rights or the struggles of racial and ethnic groups or the perpetual class war on the poor? Because they want the same things we claim to want: dignity, equal treatment under the law, a voice in one’s society, the ability to achieve full personhood.  Although many of those fights are much more ominous than ours, it still makes us natural allies.  A victory for them is a victory for us. They provide pathways and guides to scoring points for our team.  Most of all they provide hope – if they can do it we can.  The triumphs in Tunisia and Tahrir Square bring more good to our lives than Lady Gaga ever will.  Sadly, we were too busy listening to a recycled 80’s throwaway song to even notice.

It’s not to say that there aren’t those who are engaged and work hard to make things better every day.  I live in Washington and I know so many that make these issues their careers.  My hat is off to them and to anyone who incorporates activism into his or her life.  We should be grateful for any contributions. It’s also not to say that every minute of one’s life should be dedicated to the multitude of social justice issues enveloping the globe.  We all have our indulgences, our guilty pleasures of trash TV and catchy pop songs. I’m not a crotchety nun beating out the fun.  It’s when our whole life revolves around the latest Britney news, what Gaga’s wearing, or who kissed whom on Glee. Our lives only spinning on a platform of manufactured commercialized superficiality. When we don’t notice the wider world then we’ve forfeited any sustenance it possesses.  We’ve become part of the rock that the aforementioned heroes, our Sisyphus, must carry.  If we contribute nothing then we have no right to ask for anything in return.

Damn, I’m not even asking for contributions, but just a momentary acknowledgment of something more important than the flash and glitter feeding our narcissism.

Sure we have straight counterparts that bask in the same triviality, but they’re privileged and we’re not.  Most of their battles were settled years ago and we’re the new family on the Striving for Equality block.  There are well-organized and well-funded groups who want us obstructed, imprisoned, or even erased from existence. We’ll never prevail if we don’t wake up.  If we choose only to hear the loud sparkled noise emanating from TMZ and Perez Hilton then don’t be shocked when reality punches us in the face.

So when we can’t marry the ones we love, lose our jobs because we live in states lacking non-discrimination laws, or something much worse, we’ll know why.  In the end all we can hope for is a t-shirt saying, “I Didn’t Care About the World Then the World Fucked Me, and All I Got Was a Crappy Born This Way Single”.

View original image here.

Flickr/brunosan (Creative Commons)

It is not unusual for GLBTQ individuals to engage in heterosexual intercourse, whatever the circumstance. Thus it is not unusual for these individuals to be aware of the possibility of pregnancy and the decisions that occur within that possibility. In addition, for GLBTQ individuals who do not participate in heterosexual intercourse, does that mean that we don’t have friends, sisters, mothers, daughters and colleagues who deserve our support of their freedoms as they have supported ours? This is not a fight that heterosexual women should fight alone, especially when the opposition is often men in government whose bodies and freedoms are not at stake when they are writing legislation.

For me, this is an issue of personal freedom, of what one individual chooses to do with their own body or sometimes what a couple chooses to do together. It is this reason that the fight for choice also parallels the fight for gay rights. These are not issues that should be regulated by the government. These are issues that have to do with what we choose to do with our own bodies and our own lives.

Both of the issues of gay rights and personal choice are fought every day in cities and towns all over the country. This week, the pro-choice movement has been challenged again in South Dakota.  The government there has proposed that the murder of an individual who is attempting to harm or kill a fetus is a justifiable homicide. Under this law, abortion essentially becomes illegal, because an abortion provider, or a friend, spouse or parent who is assisting a woman in obtaining an abortion technically becomes “an individual attempting to harm or kill a fetus” and thus can be murdered “justifiably.”

Here is the complete text of the amended bill:

“FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.

Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”

This particular bit of legislation is frightening, and devastating, but, sadly, not that unusual. It is a tricky backhanded way of tweaking legislation that appears to be focused on defense, but actually used to restrict or criminalize the act of abortion. Technically, this new amendment also reads that the pregnant woman herself could be “justifiably” murdered if the murderer did so because the woman was attempting to procure an abortion.

This is simply a topic we should all be aware of in a way that we hope our friends and families care about our rights as GLBTQ individuals. A few small words like this are slipped in all over the place in legislation, taking away our freedoms from right under our noses.

Photo by Kaitlin Whitman

It’s a date that is not public due to security concerns, but some time in February two Iraq Veterans and an Iraqi refugee are going back to a country they left in sorrow.  Back to a country which has been under US Occupation for eight years and been at war with the US for twenty years.  In Basra, where the group will be going, the cancer rate has gone up 231 percent since the first US invasion in 1991, believed to be due to the the result of radioactive materials the US military uses in its weapons.  Electricity comes and goes, as does their running water. Things we take for granted, are great luxuries for Iraqis.  This group is attempting to help begin the process of reconciliation, to begin saying sorry and doing real work toward true change.

While some of our community were celebrating the fact that we can now openly join the largest military in the world, others of us were hard at work attempting to defeat the evils that has been required of our military under present us forgone policy.  Some saw the ability to openly serve in an environment that is based in hyper-masculinity, where one third of its female members are raped, and numerous other horrors that are built into the fabric of military culture as a reason to celebrate. Others were crafting press releases, building for fundraisers, and preparing mentally to go back to a country they once helped occupy. Others of us did not see a real reason to celebrate just yet.

Winning the right to fight openly in US military is a step towards equality but not a step towards liberation for our community. As we sit and wait for the repeal of the policy to go into effect, the horrible acts the US military is forced to perform on a daily basis continue.  We should celebrate the fact that eventually this law will be gone, we must keep in mind what the true reality of being able to join the military means. We as a community need to realize that our fight for equality has effects on other populations. Populations to whom our fight is irrelevant while they struggle not knowing where they will get their next meal.  The point of this article is not to bash those who have fought tooth and nail for the repeal of DADT but to ask ourselves to look critically at the larger picture: do we want to support a humanitarian aid trip to Iraq or have the right to occupy it?

As Martin Luther King day passes again, we as a community must look into the past fight for civil equality.  What would Dr. King say of our movement? Would he be joyous that we have gained the right to fight openly in the US military? Or would he be telling us that it is time to work on reconciliation with the Iraqi and Afghan people?

For more information and to see the process of reconciliation begin with Iraqis, Check out iVAW.org

“No thanks, I’m super busy.”

It’s my number one response to an invitation any where – lunch with coworkers, a Tuesday night movie, a birthday party in March. It’s true, I am pretty busy, but I’m also generally afraid to commit to events and activities until the last moment. It’s just one of those things about me. It’s not so much that I’m afraid something better will come along – I’m just afraid to make a promise and then fall through. I don’t want to tell a friend I’ll be at their party, and decide to stay in. I’d rather never say I was coming than commit and flake out.

Much to the chagrin of my friends, I tend to be able to commit any minor request of a significant other to my calendar at any moment’s notice. I don’t know if my girlfriends really notice this – I’m not some sort of drop-it-all-and-run-to-their-side Prince Charming – but if a spot on my calendar is blank, I will never hesitate to sign it over to my sweetheart. It’s not that hard for me to keep her on my schedule. I can commit to plans with her, no problem.

For my girl, I’ll do (pretty much) anything.

Yet, as the United States budges slowly toward legalizing gay marriage, I rest on this precipice of what commitment really means to me. I look back on my last few relationships and realize that if they had been straight relationships, and we had the same support and expectations from friends, family and society, I may have already been engaged a few times. I may have married my college sweetheart when we were 19. That blows my mind.

I am an extremely strong advocate of the legalization of marriage for same sex individuals – but, as I approach age 30 having never SERIOUSLY contemplated getting married, I’m afraid that I’m….afraid. I find myself being surprised when friends get married and jaw-dropped when I watch them exchange vows – really? You actually did it? Wow. Its something that I’ve never considered a real option – even when my ex-girlfriend and I exchanged commitment rings after a couple years of dating and cohabitating, I’m not sure either one of us really thought about saving for and planning a wedding. Sending out invitations, calling our grandparents and hiring a photographer. Somewhere in my mind, I thought, when we were ready we’d slip off to some remote location, exchange cheap rings and meaningful vows, and then return to our lives like nothing happened.

I never dreamed of getting married as a kid. The  first time I fell in love (with a boy) I didn’t really believe in marriage, and in no time I was dating girls and I didn’t see “marriage” as a real thing in my life.

I’m not afraid of committing myself to one person. I actually like that idea. I like thinking about waking up next to one person every day for the rest of my life. I like thinking about packing my stuff and moving because my wife got a new job across the country. I’m not actually afraid to commit – I’m afraid to fail. I’m afraid to promise and fail. I know so very few marriages that have lasted for a million reasons. I grew up with a single parent – I’ve never witnessed a happy marriage first hand. It’s foreign to me.

I want it. I really, really do. I want to be sure, and promise, and make another person happy. But after a lifetime of thinking about marriage as a step for other people, not for me, it’s hard for me to imagine ever going through with it.

Luckily, I’m not at a point where I have to decide, but I still think about it all the time. Am I the only queer who is learning to think about the reality of marriage for the first time?

The day Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was finally repealed, I got a text message from a bar who sends weekly promos and beer specials every so often. The text message read, “By ending DADT, no longer will patriotic American be asked to live a lie… to serve the country they love. $1 dollar well-cocktails tonight ’til 11pm!!!!” As I read the text to my best friend Cody, I remember his “What the hell was that about?” look to match my “What the fuck?” look. So we get rid of a discriminating law and we civilians are rewarded a cheap drink for the night. Yeah, cheap indeed.

All American Pie Eating Contest Credited: Good.is

In my recent post “Queering Fatness”, I address the issue of Fatness within the queer community as something to be feared of and a site of tension from many people.  This is largely caused by the obesity-led health crisis and subsequent media coverage portray the fat male body as amoral and unhygienic. With a recent coverage done by Good.is, it regards the statement made by George W. Bush in 2008 that more people were discharged because of their body fat percentage rather than their sexual orientation.

What is interesting is not the positive statement that one may be too fat to defend our country, as Bush’s statement suggests, and therefore lacks the physical capacities of a health individual. Rather the statement implies that there is a certain image of the American military and the American War machine is promoting a certain type of American citizen.

With “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discriminately forcing many queer people out the Armed Forces, many of whom are African American women, there is a  pathological apprehension of women being held in combat positions relegated to more “softer” aspects of the armed forces.  Now with the perception of obesity within the military,  we begin to see an actual physical incapability of fighting in a war. It may sound a bit odd that the military barring people of service because of a physical capability but nothing is meant about the physical capabilities of having openly gay people serve in the armed forces. Neither is there a physical incapability of women serving on combative positions. But for obesity, the armed forces view it as a greater threat than being gay.

So is it a witch hunt to find all obese people and discharge them? Is it right to bar obese people from participating within the armed forces? Being obese is harder to hide than being gay because of this physical embodiment. It is tricky because society passes judgment on obese people almost reflexively because of this embodiment but how can you really judge expressing “gayness”? What becomes increasingly clear is another failure of an institution to realize a productive value of obese people in different capabilities rather than simply stating that theyare incapable of serving the armed forces.

This renders the obese body as something disposable and feeds the claim that obese people have no value and no patriotic duty serving the armed forces.  What we, then, begin to see is a different image of the armed forces promoting a sense who can serve their patriotic duty to their country and , ultimately, who cannot.

The conglomerate is accused of discriminating against hundreds of thousands of female employees by offering lower pay and fewer promotions. The lawsuit, which according to the Associated Press could involve anywhere for 500,000 to 1.5 million female employees, seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The Supreme Court announced today that will consider whether the suit, one of the biggest employment discrimination suits in history, classifies as a class action.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has granted review in this important case,” Walmart said in a press statement. “The current confusion in class-action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes and the civil justice system. These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case.”

I, for one, am glad to see these six women stand up and call for justice. No matter if your cause is LGBT equality, women’s equality, or marriage equality, this sort of conviction is inspiring.

Since 1999, the resolution—renewed every two years—has contained a reference denouncing unjustified executions of LGBT people solely based on their sexual preference. This year however, representatives of both Arab and African nations voiced their objections, claiming that sexual orientation had no legal foundation in international human rights issues.

While most Western countries disagreed with the removal of the reference— Switzerland maintained that homophobic violence was still strongly proponed by law enforcement in many countries — the proposal for removal passed in a narrow 79-70 vote. Among the countries in favor of removal were Afghanistan, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

More Western nations, including the US,  were opposed to removing the reference. The U.S. , however, abstained from the final vote. Although diplomats told the UN General Assembly that the nation was “dismayed” at the results, I conjecture that this to justify not actually voting.

Human rights groups — especially those with an LGBT focus —are not keeping their outrage quiet. Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said in a press release, “This vote is a dangerous and disturbing development. It essentially removes the important recognition of the particular vulnerability faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

Neil Grungas, Executive Director of the Organization for Refuge, Asylum, and Migration (ORAM) said in a press release that they were equally concerned.

“This is devastating news, and a chilling reminder of the enormous battles lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face and the conditions that can force them to flee their homes.”

Hannah Ward, Director of Communications at ORAM, said to TNG, “It’s very frightening because the resolution has been there since 1999, and it’s concerning that people would want to remove something that’s only there to be a safeguard to individuals. “

ORAM plays a particularly interesting role in this issue. A U.S.-based non-profit, ORAM helps refugee and asylum seekers worldwide who have been forced out of their countries of origin due to persecution based on their sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. The organization provides these people with free legal representation while conducting advocacy and education on behalf of the refugees. Their advocacy reaches out to NGOs, inter-governmental organizations, and community groups. Their education efforts include lectures, writings, and public presentations.

ORAM is also based in the UK, Istanbul, and Tel Aviv. The last two bases, located in countries that are much less accepting of LGBT people, work with refugees from Iran, Israel, and African countries. These ORAM bases help these people resettle in safer countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.S—and, because of their location, they can provide more immediate and local help to LGBT members living in more hostile and violent environments.

“Pressure must be continued on countries to end the persecution of people for their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Grungras in the press release. “In the meantime, we can all be doing something now in our home countries to save lives—and that is to accept refugees who are forced to flee the barbaric practices of their home countries.

Groups like ORAM and IGLHRC are worried that the U.N. vote could effectively validate killings of LGBT community members. The removal of the reference could also mean an increase in refugees seeking aid from ORAM. In his statement, Grungas added, “The international community must redouble its efforts to protect the few who manage to escape.” While they don’t have a specific campaign for reversal of the decision, Ward said that the organization is looking to work with other organizations that may be more involved in the legislative and political sphere to try to challenge the decision.

There is still a dim silver lining, Ward said to TNG, and that is the fact that 70 countries still support retaining the reference. “We hope to be able to work with those countries and to help them to put pressure on the countries who voted for removal so that it can be reinstated,” she added.

To learn more about ORAM, visit their hompage.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play lesbian moms in "The Kids Are All Right"

According to the study, “The absence of child abuse in lesbian mother families is particularly noteworthy, because victimization of children is pervasive and its consequences can be devastating…these reports from adolescents with lesbian mothers have implications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, social service agencies, and child protection experts who seek family models in which violence does not occur.”

The study was conducted by Nanette Gartell, M.D., Henry Bos, Ph.D. (University of Amsterdam), and Naomi Goldberg, M.P.P. (Williams Institute at UCLA). The NLLFS is the longest-running study ever conducted on American lesbian families, and is now in its 24th year.

Hopefully the clear cut results from this study may eradicate or ebb bigoted and irrational notions that gay and lesbian parents are unfit to raise children and will automatically “make” their children gay. The results may also have an effect on social service and child protection agencies, looking for non-violent family models. The issue of legal adoption rights also comes into play here; it will be interesting to see whether this study, and others like it, will come into the political sphere.

Get it girl! courtesy narf.tv

Granted, we all have a different idea of where the sweet spot is when balancing privacy with safety, but the common consensus seems to be that none of us are looking forward to being irradiated on our holiday trips home.  The alternative is an out-of-the-radiation-pan-and-into-the-sweaty-palm type situation, so what to do?

My thoughts: ask not what the TSA can do for you, but what you can do for the TSA.  That’s why I’m advocating #FreeBallFlying and #FreeBoobFlying for this holiday season.  If there’s a group out there that’s just falling all over itself to get its hands on my junk, who am I to deny them the full experience?  I will not sully my search experience (for either party involved) by neatly packaging my unmentionables behind all-too-sanitary mesh and spandex.

So as you create your holiday travel plans this year, don’t forget to forget the underwear.  And as that portly pervert asks you to spread ‘em, make sure to give your KGB agent a slight knowing smile so he gets the message, “You and I both know what this is about, and for the record, I’m into it.  Merry Xmas, you filthy animal.”

Help spread the #FreeBallFlying and #FreeBoobFlying message on Twitter!

Joseph Rocha, Washington D.C., 2010

On Wednesday, I received the assignment to cover photographer Vincent Cianni’s talk about his new project ‘Gays In the Military: How America Thanked Me.’ The seed of anticipation was planted.

On Thursday, I set off for the city, but before getting on the subway, stopped at the Outpost Café for a cup of coffee. As I waited in line – a book caught my eye, sticking out of the magazine rack. It was a copy of ‘Unfriendly Fire’ by Nathaniel Frank – with a blue piece of paper jutting out of its pages. It was a note from Nathan, thanking the Outpost Café for its hospitality while he wrote most of the manuscript in the café.

Once in the city, I found myself walking along Washington Square Park weaving through the many students and young adults dressed in their military uniforms.  A spirit of pride and excitement was in the air. And I couldn’t help imagine what the scene would look like, sound like, and feel like – when gay men and women can openly serve in the military. I will tell you this, it will be nothing less of resplendent. The Veterans Day Parade will be turned in to an Autumn Gay Pride Parade.  It will mark the beginning of a new model of who a gay man or lesbian can be.

On Friday, I woke up to the New York Time’s headline, ‘Little Harm Found if Gay Ban Is Lifted.’ After all the lives that have been smothered, we learn, what many have known all along. Little harm! Nathaniel Frank asked in his books prologue, “What has been the cost of openly gay service to military effectiveness? Answer: It hasn’t sapped the military, and the costs have been nil.”

Nathaniel also writes that “The military’s policy on gays and lesbians has been transformed from a residual hodgepodge of a bygone era to a carefully articulated modern legal morass that wreaks havoc with the lives of service members and with the capacity of our nation to defend itself – all courtesy of an administration that promised it would make things better.”

And so I arrive on Sunday, at powerHouse Books. Roughly 30 have come. And while Mr. Cianni sets up, a quote is projected on to the wall:

“I am a soldier. I am a gay man. I believe there is no greater honor than to serve in uniform. I cannot tell my name.” – anonymous soldier

Mr. Cianni says from the start that his project is not about “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It is about the ban on homosexuals in the military. Sparked by an interview on the radio with Pvt. Nathanael Bodon’s mother, Mary Bodon – he was moved by her love, support, and certainty that her son would be okay.  And so since November 2009 he has been interviewing gay service members who are long retired, discharged, or still active. Mr. Cianni’s focus seems to be on the effect of invisibility, forced dishonesty, loss of dignity, shame, chronic fear, and as one soldier said, “dreams being crushed.”

Mr. Cianni has chosen to photograph almost all of his subjects in their homes, and shot in black and white. In keeping with his interest in the mental cost of this ban on homosexuality in the military – he gives these men and women an opportunity to speak. Audio of his interviews are played and we hear, in their own words, the effect this ban has had on their lives.

It is in Joseph Rocha’s (pictured above) pleading words that the heart of the matter is simply articulated. “People have the right of a human relationship. Having a human aspect to my life.”

There is no joy in Mr. Cianni’s work. How could there be? DADT literally stripped gay men and lesbians of their full humanity. Although I would argue that many along the way refused to be completely stripped and found their humanity and joy in spite of this policy.

What Mr. Cianni has done, is incredibly important, he has given these men and women an opportunity for their voices to be heard, and their stories told. It is hard difficult truth. It is a painful progress that seems necessary for what comes next. Joy?

There will be a day in the coming years when the front pages of every newspaper across America are filled with joyful faces.

There will come an October day in the coming years when gay soldiers march down 5^th Avenue with their heads held high – and on that day, and like the soldiers, America will be more fully itself.

Note: Mr. Cianni has kindly allowed The New Gay to be the first to publish the photo above of Joseph Rocha.

Photo Cred: Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

“And people are like, ‘How can that be? You’re married in Connecticut, and your marriage is legal.’ And we say, ‘But Joanne is a retired Federal Employee. This is part of the Defense of Marriage Act.’ And they’re like, ‘Are you kidding? That’s not fair!’ and clearly it’s not fair,” Meitzen told wthn.com.

And it certainly isn’t fair. This loophole that DOMA has found effectively delegitimizes legal marriages between same-sex couples at a federal level, a move that is unconstitutional and wrong.

Pederson and Meitzen are just two of many LGBT community members being denied federal rights and protections simply because they are married to a person of the same sex.  As the law stands now, LGBT marriages are legal under state law, but the federal government does not recognize same-sex unions.

But Pederson and Meitzen are refusing to take this lying down. They are two of 11 plaintiffs in The Gay & Lesbian Advocated & Defenders (GLAAD)’s second major lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Along with Pederson and Meitzen, four other married same-sex couples and one widower—while qualified for spousal benefit or protection—were denied their application by the federal government.

Said Pederson in a GLAAD press release, “Getting married was extremely meaningful to Ann and me. We were shocked to discover that the federal government essentially looks on ours as a second-class marriage.”

Each of the GLAAD lawsuits involve couples from Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire. In each suit, GLAAD argues that DOMA Section 3 violated the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection, and is also an infringement by the federal government on marriage law—a law that has been always decided on a state level.

“All these people are working people,” said Mary L. Bonauto, director of the Civil Rights project for GLAAD in a press-release video. “They all need the protections that the government provides for married folks. DOMA is hurting real people. And we want to keep the pressure on and make sure that the courts declare it unconstitutional and inoperative at the soonest possible date.”

The plaintiffs of Pederson v OP

A similar challenge by the gay rights legal group in Massachusetts came to a ruling in July from a federal judge saying that the act is unconstitutional. The Obama administration is purported to be appealing this decision. However, in the Massachusetts case, the Justice Department defended DOMA, and based on the comments of spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, is likely to do so again in the two upcoming cases. “The Justice Department has a longstanding tradition of defending acts of Congress when they are challenged in court,” Schmaler told John Schwartz of The New York Times.

These two new cases being pushed forth may increase pressure on President Obama to follow through on his promises to support gay rights—promises that haven’t really been fulfilled yet in his time of office. While Obama has called for the repeal of DOMA, naming it discriminatory, he also has said in the past that he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. However, when speaking last month with progressive liberal bloggers, including AMERICAblog Gay, Obama said that “attitudes evolve,” and that he had been thinking about the issue a lot lately. Hopefully these lawsuits will cause him to think a lot more about the issue, and work with Congress to repeal repressive acts like DOMA.

The National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports DOMA, cites in their mission statement that “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” Right, because clearly the LGBT community wants marriage rights only to spite the straight community. Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman for NOM, said to The New York Times that court challenges to DOMA prove that gay rights advocates “continue to push a primarily court-based strategy of, in our view, inventing rights that neither the founders nor the majority of Americans can recognize in our Constitution,” a remark that makes little sense, seeing as marriage is, and always has been, considered mandated at a state level.

If GLAAD wins this legal battle, it would mean a repeal of Section 3 of  DOMA— the federal government could not deny same-sex married couples the rights to retirees benefits programs, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits under federal pension laws, work leave to care for a spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act, and state retiree health insurance plans.  It would mean that all same-sex couples, legally married by the state, could count on having the same medical benefits as heterosexual married couples do when times get tough. It would mean that Lynda DeForge, another plaintiff in the suit, could take off work to care for her wife who has degenerative arthritis. It would mean an admission of the rights that the LGBT community should have always had.

For Pederson and Meitzen, this is a matter of what would seem to be obvious injustice. The two have been together for 12 years, and were married in 2008. Their marriage is recognized by the state of Connecticut, and marriage law has historically been state regulated. Pederson is a civilian retiree from the Department of Naval Intelligence, and adding Meitzen to her federal employee health benefits program would save both women hundreds of dollars a month.

Both have been married to men, and have children. The irony that the federal government would not have denied them their rights during their heterosexual marriages is not lost on either.

“If we were heterosexual, we wouldn’t be talking today, because we would have the benefits,” Pedersen told Schwartz. “I would just like the federal government to recognize our marriage as just as real as everybody else’s.”

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle are indeed in love, and want a binding legal union—but marriage just isn’t their style. “The titles of husband and wife and all the things that pop into people’s heads when you say you’re getting married don’t appeal to us,” said Doyle, a student, to Jill Lawless of the Huffington Post. “In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners – we don’t feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that.”

Photo Cred: Huffington Post, Nov 2010

The two filled out their application for a civil partnership, but were rejected by officials at their local town hall in Islington on Tuesday. But Doyle and Freeman will go to court to win this right. The couple is supported by gay rights activists like Peter Tatchell, organizer of the “Equal Love” campaign, who said to the Huffington Post, “denying heterosexual couples the right to have a civil partnership is heterophobic.” Activists like Tatchell hope that a ruling allowing straight couples the right to a civil partnership would imply that gay couples would the have the right to a marriage.

Civil partnerships and marriages are virtually the same institution: Britain introduced civil partnerships in 2005, providing same-sex couples with all the legal protection, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners. The only thing missing is the actual label of marriage.

For these reasons, legal experts and law professor Robert Wintemute, the advisor of the campaign feel the case is strong. “How can the government justify this, when the legal rights attached to each legal institution are identical?” Wintemute asked HuffPo.

It will be interesting to see how the case pans out. Recent surveys of UK citizens conveyed that most people support education about gay parents in public schools. If this request passes legally, it could open more doors for LGBT couples and more opportunities for education about alternate families and relationships could arise.

Parenting UK surveyed 2,000 people about different aspects of gay parenting. Over two-thirds surveyed said that schools should educate students about gay parents, and that gay and lesbian issues should be included in the curriculum. Equally, over two-thirds of parents surveyed said that they had, or planned to, talk with their child about family types outside of nuclear, such as gay or lesbian parents.

Tackling homophobia and homophobic bullying was also discussed, and 70 percent surveyed said that homophobia should be handled the same way that racism is handled—and two-thirds agreed that the use of the term “that’s so gay” to describe something as negative or stupid should be prevented.

While these survey results are positive, the real life situations have not borne them out quite yet. A 2009 YouGov survey for Stonewall of over 2,000 primary and secondary school teachers showed that 90 percent of teachers have not received any specific training or instructions on how to prevent homophobic bullying. Over a third of secondary school teachers, and almost two thirds of primary school teachers have not yet addressed issues of sexual orientation in their lessons.

In addition to the survey, the online video channel for parents, ParentChannel.tv, has unveiled a new video clip that examines the experiences of being a gay parent. The video acknowledges the obstacles or challenges that may come with being a gay parent. ParentChannel offers tips for gay and lesbian parents on adoption, new relationships, parental responsibility, and dealing with prejudice.

The communications director at ParentChannel.tv, Rachel Tonkin, explained that the clip is part of their range of videos covering all aspects of parents. “Gay parents are normal and equally good as other types of parents,” she said. “We want to use the clip to provide support for gay parents, promote the importance of good parenting and bringing up children with tolerance and acceptance whoever the parents.”

Lisa Cholodenko’s new movie ‘The Kids Are All Right,’ coincides nicely with Tonkin’s sentiments, and Parent UK’s survey. ‘Kids’ is a film starring Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, details the lives of two lesbian parents trying to raise their children while also struggling with balancing jobs and figuring out their own relationship. Things get more complicated when their daughters brings their birth father into their lives and home.

Said Tonkin of ‘Kids’, “The film promotes different family types as totally normal and reinforces the fact that gay people can be good parents and offer a normal upbringing for children. The film is a big budget Hollywood movie with class A actors like Julianne Moore which will help to promote a mainstream awareness and understanding of different family types.”

Critically acclaimed as “beautifully written, impeccably played, funny, randy, and true” (The Boston Globe), ‘Kids’ looks like a Hollywood production that will finally be getting it right. With the release of the film coupled with Parenting UK’s survey results and ParentChannel’s newest video, one can only hope that this indicates social change for the better.