Past News Archive: July 2003

         
         

     

Disclaimer of this site

Table of Contents

Research Study Outcomes

Current News Collections

Postal Service Wins Right To Bar Transgendered From Women's Washrooms
365Gay.com Newscenter (London Bureau)
By Peter Moore
July 20, 2003
 
(London) A transgendered woman has lost her battle to be able to use the women's washroom at work. 

39-year-old Sarah Croft's had sued her employer, the Royal Mail after her bosses told her she would be fired if she used the woman's bathroom.

Croft began work at the Royal Mail as a postal sorter in 1987. At that time she was Nicholas Simpson, the father of three, worked as a driver based at the Leicester sorting office.

In 1998 she began sex reassignment treatment. Female staff complained to management that Croft should not be using their toilets. Management suggested, and Croft at first agreed, that until she underwent gender changing surgery she could use the disabled workers bathroom.

In February 1999, she took sick leave suffering from stress and depression. 

Two months later she told her supervisors she would be returning to her job but no longer wanted to use the disabled toilet as she felt it was an obstacle to her gaining acceptance as a female.

She was told that if she did so, she faced being suspended for insubordination.

When an Employment Tribunal found that there had been no direct discrimination and no constructive or unfair dismissal she appealed.

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Pill threw out the case ruling that because Croft " presents herself as female it does not follow that she is entitled to use the ladies' lavatories." 
 
Preserve gay rights: Dean should lead the charge to protect same-sex unions
By Daniel Thies (works at a local Starbucks and writes in his free time)
E-mail: NEXT@seattletimes.com
July 19, 2003
 
Gay communities of North America have much to celebrate. Last month, Canada announced it would legalize same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court recently decided in the case of Lawrence v. Texas to strike down Texas' gay-specific anti-sodomy law.  

This news has stirred a great deal of debate, and generated paranoia among many conservatives that activists will continue to push forward the so-called gay agenda. This has led many pundits to wonder aloud, "What's next, gay marriage in America?" 

The current buzz around the issue has caused some Republicans in Congress to take action. There is now a proposal in the House to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. 

With the Democratic primary season on the horizon, the issue of gay marriage could become a lightning rod of debate among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose primary bid is rapidly gaining momentum, is the candidate whose campaign could be most affected by this issue. 

In 2000, Dean signed Vermont's civil-unions bill into law. The bill gave same-sex couples in Vermont the right to enter a legal union in which they would have all the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded to straight married couples.  

Dean's decision instantly propelled him into the national spotlight, and made him something of an icon among gay 
communities across America. The potential problem this poses for Dean is that much of his perceived unelectability is based on the idea that he is too liberal. When the issue of same-sex marriage arises, many of Dean's rivals, in an effort to portray him as being too far to the left, may use his support of the civil-unions law against him. 

While it is doubtful that any of the Democratic hopefuls would support a Constitutional amendment that essentially bans same-sex marriage, they might opt to state their support for a lesser gay-rights package - a watered-down version of Vermont's civil-unions law, perhaps. 

The intention of doing so would be to cast Dean apart from the rest of them, to make themselves appear as moderates, while Dean appears as the proponent of a radical gay agenda for which they feel America is not yet ready. 

The truth is that Dean is no radical. In Vermont, he is viewed as a moderate-to-conservative Democrat. He echoes those to his right in his callsfor fiscal responsibility. He supports capital punishment. The National Rifle Association gives him an "A" for his support of certain gun-owners' rights. 

In fact, gay rights were never on the governor's agenda until early 2000. The civil-unions law was the result of a December 1999 state Supreme Court mandate, stating that same-sex couples were being unfairly deprived of equal marriage rights under the law. The decision left it up to the state Legislature to remedy the problem. Their solution was to create a system that paralleled marriage, but stopped just short of calling it that. 

Dean stated he would not support outright gay marriage. Instead he reasoned that same-sex couples would be sufficiently served by the law in a "different but equal" system of legal union. 

While the Supreme Court decision left the governor with no choice but to eventually face the issue, it still took a great deal of courage on Dean's part to sign the bill enacting civil unions. What's most admirable is that Dean truly believed that same-sex couples deserved equal rights and was willing to put his political career on the line to show it. 

A non-binding referendum in the spring of 2000 showed that the majority of Vermonters did not support the law. In the following November's election, Dean, who at one point was the most popular governor in Vermont history, only narrowly won re-election and watched his party lose control of the state House of Representatives. 

Dean is now considered a serious candidate in the Democratic primary race. If nominated, he will face a popular incumbent president who openly opposes same-sex marriage. 

President Bush and other conservatives will likely use tactics designed to instill fear in voters, telling us if we vote 
for Dean, we're voting for the radical agenda of an ultra-liberal, gay-rights advocate. 

In reality, Dean's signing of the civil-unions bill does not prove any of this about him. It simply shows that he is a man 
who is willing to stand up for what he believes is right, no matter on which side of the political aisle he may stand.  

It is important that Dean continue to stand firmly behind his support of civil unions. He must not bow to pressure to 
appear more moderate. He is running on support from Democrats looking to nominate the anti-Bush, not what he calls "Bush- lite." 

As the issue of gay marriage becomes more prevalent, and when Dean's Democratic rivals try to convince us that he's too 
liberal to be elected, Dean himself needs to step in. He must convince voters, as well as his opponents, that there are no 
sinister motives behind the actions of ordinary citizens, seeking nothing more than equal treatment under the law. 

Tell them, Dean, that there is nothing radical about supporting equal rights for all Americans.
 
Gay Pride 2003
Bonjour Paris
Copyright (c) 2000 Paris New Media, LLC
Bonjour Paris (R) is a Registered Trademark of Paris New Media, LLC
By Monique Wells
July 18, 2003 Volume 1, Issue 32
 
After 11 years of living in Paris, I have finally attended my first Gay Pride parade. I found the experience to be amusing, moving and educational all at the same time. Once known as the Lesbian and Gay Pride parade, last year it was christened the Marche des Fiertes Lesbienne, Gai, Bi et Trans, or Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans Pride March.

I arrived at place d'Italie just before 2 PM, the starting time for the parade. It was swarming with spectators. I was just in time to catch two songs performed by a group called Les Caramels Fous, who were amassed in front of a what I thought was a stand for a group called Les Voix Contre le SIDA (Voices against AIDS). Before the "Crazy Caramels" finished their second number, the parade began and the "stand" drove off! I looked for Mayor Delanoe, whose presence was anticipated, but did not spot him ¡V perhaps he was at the head of the parade, which I missed seeing.

Happily, the weather proved warm and sunny so that people who were so inclined could comfortably bare skin for the world to see. The drag queens were in full regalia, delighting in posing for photos that curiosity seekers and journalists alike were fervently snapping. But I found that the most interesting aspect of the parade was the wide variety of organizations that were represented. 

Instead of standing at the place to watch everyone to go by, I decided to walk along the boulevard Auguste Blanqui to see the parade participants while they queued. The line extended all the way to rue de la Sante at the border of the 13th and 14th arrondissements, roughly 1 kilometer from the starting point. I saw an amazing array of organizations represented, from those touting pure fun and athletic activity to religious groups and political associations. As BP reporter Lucinda Blumenfeld noted in a recent article, the bakery LeGay Choc had a place in line.

The Gais Musette float was a converted flatbed truck where people danced to traditional guinguette music. Theater was represented: Madame H. advertised "her" new play La Saga des Transpedegouines (The Saga of Transgenders, Gays and Lesbians ¡V my translation), which is to open at the Au Point Virgule theater in October 2003, and Cour et Jardin, a theatrical workshop for gays and lesbians, displayed the classic masks of tragedy and comedy. There were floats for a hiking group ( Rando's Ile de France), a water sports association (Aquahomo) and a soccer club (Arc-en-Ciel, which proudly displayed the logo of designer agnes b.[one of its sponsors] on its banner). I saw a float for gay Jews (Beit Haverim) and one for gay Christians (David & Jonathan). There were also organizations representing various ethnic groups, such as Lusogay for Brazilian and Fant'asia for Asian gays. The anti-AIDS group Act Up was, of course, present, and a man atop a float sponsored by a public health organization named Cyber-CRIPS tossed condoms to spectators.

Amidst the joyous cries from the crowd, the outrageous attire and the booming party music coming from almost every direction, political groups provided the counterbalance for what gay pride represents. In keeping with the anti-
discrimination theme of this year's parade, a group called L¡¦Association des Parents et Futurs Parents Gays et Lesbiens ( Association of Gay and Lesbian Parents and Future Parents) and another called Contact demonstrated in support of dialogue among gays and lesbians, their parents, children and other family members. There was a group supported by the French Communist Party as well as one that sported a banner saying "Avec Jacques Chirac contre l¡¦homophobie" ("With Jacques Chirac against homophobia"). At least two groups demonstrated for the granting of asylum to gays persecuted in countries such as Saudi Arabia and India. Several others demonstrated against homophobia in France.

To my surprise, I also saw gay groups from Air France, SNCF, RATP and the police department marching. As part of a umbrella organization called Homoboulot, they fight for equal rights and against homophobia in the workplace. According to a flyer that I received, such organizations also exist at Canal+, the Hotel de Ville de Paris, the French military and France Telecom.

I did not go to place de la Republique to see the end of the parade, but I know from the Gay Pride web site that Radio Nova was to have a stand there and that various singers, bands and DJs were scheduled to entertain the crowds until 9 PM. To round out the day, parties were planned at La Maison Rouge on rue des Archives and at Decadence on rue du Bourg Abbe in the Marais. I didn't go to these either ¡V my days of hanging out until all hours have long since passed me by. But for the few hours that I mixed with the throngs of people who turned out to watch the parade at place d¡¦Italie, I enjoyed the spirit of warmth, camaraderie and conviction that infused the air.
--
Monique Y. Wells is co-owner of Discover Paris! - Personalized Itineraries for Independent Travelers as well as the author of Food for the Soul - A Texas Expatriate Nurtures her Culinary Roots in Paris.
N.H. Dentist Suspended for Anti-Gay Acts
AP
July 18, 2003
 
FRANKLIN, N.H. - A dentist who refused to treat a lesbian and berated another patient for moving around in discomfort had his state license suspended. 

Joseph Roper Jr. committed professional misconduct, the Board of Dental Examiners wrote in a settlement reached last week.  

The board said that in March 1999, Roper confronted patient Tricia Thompson in the waiting room after seeing that she had identified a female partner as her spouse on a "get-acquainted card." Roper refused to provide treatment and told her loudly that same-sex marriages were against his belief. 

"During the same conversation ... and while in his reception area where other people were present, Dr. Roper asked of ( Thompson), 'Do you have AIDS?'" the settlement said. 

In the second case, Roper became agitated as a patient moved around in discomfort as he replaced old fillings, the 
agreement said. "Ultimately, Dr. Roper stated words to the effect, 'What are you trying to do? Get me to cut you so you can sue me?'" the agreement said. 

Roper neither confirmed nor denied the accusations, but agreed to suspend his practice. The suspension will be lifted only if a psychiatrist determines Roper can practice dentistry safely, professionally and competently. 

A civil case Thompson filed against Roper was settled in 2001. 
 
In Gay-Rights First, Argentine Men Unite
AP
By MAYRA PERTOSSI
July 18, 2003
 
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Two men were joined Friday in a same-sex civil union in Buenos Aires, a ceremony hailed as a victory for gay rights in Latin America. 

Cesar Cigliutti, 45, and Marcelo Suntheim, 35, took advantage of a new law recognizing same-sex unions in Buenos Aires, the first Argentine city to adopt such a measure. The law does not term the union a marriage. 

"It's hard for me to find words, but I am overcome with emotion," Cigliutti said. 

The law extends to gay couples many of the benefits of marriage, such as health and pension benefits. Among the exceptions is the adoption of children. 

Father Alberto Bochatey, a Roman Catholic expert on bioethics, said the initiative was passed without enough public debate.  

"We understand that everybody has the right to be respected in their individual rights but we don't believe these kind of civil unions are the correct response to their needs," Bochatey said. 


Homosexual and lesbian groups described the legislation as the most far-reaching in Latin America. 

"For us, the law is the state's recognition of our right to be a couple and will allow us to access social benefits that we 
were excluded from," said Sunthein told reporters at the time of the law's passage. 

In the United States, homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions 
that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage.  

On Thursday, Canada's government proposed that marriage be defined as the "lawful union of two persons," which would 
legalize same-sex marriage throughout country. 
Argentine Gays Legalize Union, 1st in Latin America
Reuters
By Hilary Burke
July 18, 2003
 
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - Glasses clinked and confetti flew on Friday as two Argentines became the first gay couple in Latin America to take advantage of a new law legalizing same-sex civil unions. 

"Every gay, lesbian, transvestite and transsexual in Argentina has always fantasized about this moment," said Marcelo 
Suntheim, 35, as he was jostled by journalists, well-wishers and curious onlookers outside the city's civil registry.  

"Because of all the people who fought for this who are not here to see it, this is a very emotional moment," said Marcelo's partner Cesar Cigliutti, 45, referring to fellow gay activists who died of AIDS (news - web sites). 

Theirs was the first ceremony since the Buenos Aires legislature granted legal status last year to gay couples in a city of 3 million people that is known as one of the most progressive in this deeply Roman Catholic continent. 

The law has been hailed as a first in Latin America. 

Couples can now share insurance coverage and qualify as family members during hospital visits, but their union is not the same as marriage. They cannot adopt children, inherit each other's wealth or get spousal pension benefits. 

SEVERAL LIMITATIONS 
Nor will the law cover people who live outside the capital or allow access to federal benefits in this nation of 36 million people. 

The Argentine capital joined a handful of places, including some U.S. states and several European nations, that recognize legal status for gay unions. 

Before year's end, the nonprofit group Argentine Homosexual Community will push for a national measure granting same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexuals who marry, said Cigliutti, the group's president. 

City Hall officials expect about 150 gay couples to seal their civil unions in coming months, a spokeswoman said. 

Though the law was approved last year it did not go into effect until this week. 

Buenos Aires -- known as the Paris of Latin America with its boulevards, cafes and vibrant cultural scene -- has long seen itself as a beacon of European enlightenment in the continent. 

While in much of Latin America a macho culture dominates and gays are scorned, in Buenos Aires there are gay activist groups, bars and parades. 

In neighboring Chile, for example, even divorce -- let alone gay civil unions -- is illegal. 

Cigliutti, who was sprinkled with rainbow-colored gay pride confetti, celebrated with a glass of sparkling cider, saying: "Our society has really demonstrated maturity in recognizing our rights." (Additional reporting by Alistair Scrutton)  
U.S. gays urged to think twice before marrying here
FROM CANADIAN PRESS
July 17, 2003
 
American same-sex couples are advised to pause and consider the strength of their love before flocking north to get 
hitched, especially because a marriage in Canada could be permanent. 

"The problem for gays and lesbians is that while they may have the right to get married, they may not have the right to get divorced," says Toronto lawyer Douglas Elliott, lead counsel in the case that legalized same-sex marriage in Ontario last month. 

While there is no residency requirement to get married in Canada, a year's residency is needed to divorce here. 

That means a same-sex couple living in a country that won't recognize their marriage may not be able to legally separate unless one partner moves to Canada, "so it's a very serious commitment indeed," Elliott said in an interview. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled June 10 that the law's failure to recognize same-sex marriages was unconstitutional and a similar ruling followed in B.C. 

The federal government will not appeal and will submit an amended law permitting same-sex unions to the Supreme Court for review before it is dealt with by Parliament. 

Elsewhere in the world, only Belgium and the Netherlands recognize same-sex marriage. 

Since the court decisions, dozens of American couples have flocked to Canadian wedding chapels. 

The rulings, which U.S. advocates are calling the "Canadian earthquake" because of their shattering impact on the gay 
rights movement, has galvanized efforts to force U.S. courts to accept same-sex marriages as well. 

But activists are advising American couples be cautious before taking advantage of the new Canadian law. 

Soon after the Ontario decision, a coalition of five key advocate groups issued a joint advisory saying American couples " should absolutely not race across the border just to set up lawsuits; the wrong case could set us back years." 

The worry is that the fight to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S. could get bogged down as smaller cases are dealt 
with, says Evan Wolfson of New York, executive director of Freedom to Marry, one of the five coalition groups. 

"We need to approach the end of discrimination carefully," said the high-profile lawyer, adding that shouldn't discourage American couples from getting marrying in Canada. 

Canadian marriage licenses have always been honoured in the United States but it is still unclear if individual states will recognize the matrimonial unions of gay and lesbian couples. 

While the legal implications of same-sex marriage have not been sorted out, public opinion in the United States is mixed.  

Most Americans say same-sex marriages should not be legally valid or hold the same rights as traditional marriages, 
according to a poll released by CNN and USA Today earlier this month. Fifty-five per cent of the 1,000 people polled said 
gay marriages should not be valid while 39 per cent said they should be. 

Wolfson said American couples should expect a mixed reception from employers, governments and the courts when they return from Canada with a marriage licence. 

"We wanted people to know that when they come home from Canada married, they will likely, at least for a time, encounter a mix of respect but also discrimination and uncertainty," he said. 

Elliott said he has had numerous calls from same-sex couples in the United States and other countries seeking legal advice before they marry in Canada. He has several recommendations. 

"First thing is you have to consider whether you want to be married to your partner. It's a very serious commitment with lots of legal consequences so it's not something that should be done lightly," he said. 

"The second thing is you have to make sure that you're qualified to marry here. That is, if you were previously married, that you're now properly divorced," he said, adding that he's been surprised by the volume of calls from people who want to marry their same-sex partner but haven't officially dissolved their previous heterosexual marriage. 

Elliott echoed Wolfson's caution that people should also prepare for resistance from their employers, governments and the courts when they go home. 

"As long as they are sure about what they are doing and are aware of the legal consequences, I'd say, 'Welcome to Canada.' " 

At the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, wedding co-ordinator Bill Estey said he has seen at least a dozen American same-sex couples walk down the aisle, and all were well-informed about their legal rights. 

"The advice we say to them, is that it's valid in Canada but you'd better check with the lawyers involved in the state in 
which you are living to verify what that does to you in the United States," he said. 
Lesbians in Taiwan: A bed of roses
CONTRIBUTING REPORTER: Bradley Winterton
Sunday, Jul 13, 2003, Page 18
 
Academic Sang Tze-lin says the country is the most progressive place for a gay and lesbian identity in East Asia, except for Japan.

Subtitled Female Same -- Sex Desire in Modern China, The Emerging Lesbian holds Taiwan in reserve until its final chapters. But when it eventually turns to the island, it comes out with all guns blazing. Taiwan, Sang Tze-lin proclaims, has since the early 1990s pioneered the emergence and definition of a lesbian identity in a way that's unique in the Chinese-speaking world. 

American-style its arguments may be, but in a pan-Chinese context they are crucially important. The future, she argues, may show that Taiwan sowed the seeds of a modern Chinese lesbian identity which the mainland's same-sex-oriented women ventually followed. 

The book, which started life as a Ph.D. thesis at Berkeley, California, is an academic work that looks at the evolution of lesbian politics in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It doesn't, despite its title and subtitle, find evidence of very much of an unbridled nature being done or publicly said in China. The absence of the free interchange of ideas there means that such groups as exist have had to express themselves in guarded, and especially non-political, language. 

In Taiwan, however, things could hardly be more different. Taiwan's fiction about lesbian and gay sexuality in the 1990s became "voluminous" the author claims. She points to the "uncountable" number of MOTSS ("Members of the Same Sex") domains set up by students on the Internet BBS (Bulletin Board System) here. She points to Web sites such as that of Hong peiji ("G -zine"), described as an electronic journal featuring incisive feminist and lesbian commentary with intentionally " offensive" graphics, the work of a group at Taiwan's National Tsing Hua University. Another Taiwanese lesbian Web site she points to is that of the TO-GET-HER Lez Cyberpub. Furthermore, quoting a 1996 American source that focused on Taiwanese female same-sex culture, she states that there were, even seven years ago, over 30 lesbian bars ("T-bars" [T for tomboy]) in Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung where the clientele was "very young," generally between the ages of 14 and 23. 

"The growth of these organizations throughout the 1990s in Taiwan is emblematic of the vitality and strength of the lesbian and feminist movements on the island," she writes. "The Taiwanese militant lesbian feminist persona is not just a new lesbian identity. It is an unprecedented public female identity, at least as far as the Chinese-speaking world is 
concerned." 

It's important to underline just what the writer is saying here: Taiwan's lesbian presence represents, irrespective of 
sexual preferences, women standing up as a group in public in a way that has no parallel in any other part of the Chinese world. "We are left, then, with an intriguing question indeed," she goes on, "Whether the pointed critiques of the structuring of gender norms, differences, and hierarchies that Taiwanese lesbian feminists have advanced on the island for over a decade can catalyze similar developments on the mainland in the near future." 

In discussing the remarkable upsurge of gay and lesbian writing here in the 1990s, Sang Tze-lan gives a lot of space to Qiu Miaojin, the author of The Crocodile's Journal, who took her own life in Paris in June 1995, aged 26. She considers the book "honest" and "questioning" and contrasts it favorably with "more ideologically-driven novels and short stories that certain queer theorists-cum-writers produced in 1990s Taiwan." Of course it's not all a bed of roses here for lesbians and gays. 

Sang points an accusing finger at Taiwan's sensationalist and "schizophrenic" Chinese-language print and TV media, on the one hand ever eager to give publicity to gay and lesbian issues, yet on the other hand unable to resist falling back on satiric stereotypes. 

Qiu Miaojin's book, too, gave a lot of space to (in Sang's words) satirizing the Taiwan media's "invention of homosexuals as a mystical, biologically distinct species." Nor is Sang uncritical of the flourishing study of gender and sexuality in Taiwan's universities. 

Local academics who comment on the new fictional material so profusely, she says, have become TV and media personalities in their own right, despite their tendency to tirelessly cite Western queer theory. NTU and the National Central University are given as the powerhouses of this analytical and promotional discourse. Sang points out that in China, by contrast, not only was homosexuality unmentionable in public prior to the 1980s, but also that, even now, no major female writer there has yet publicly claimed a lesbian identity. 

After considering the situation in imperial China, the book looks at Republican China (1911 to 1949) and sees at least a 
debate on the viability of female same-sex love there. It then moves on to analyze the work of some prominent feminist authors in the contemporary PRC. The two most important of these are Lin Bai, author of One Person's War (1994), and Chen Ran, author of Private Life (1996). Both of these books are perceived in China as embodying a new female sensibility, part of the approved movement toward the expression of individual views (up to a point). Sang argues, however, that the true nature of the feelings explored in both books is actually a lesbian one. Both authors, however, in interviews with Sang, refused any such identification. 

Nevertheless, when Sang visited Beijing again, in 1998, she met a group of self-identified lesbians. When she asked if they planned to start a campaign, one of them significantly remarked, "We want life, not politics." In an obscure footnote, the author refers to Taiwan as "my native place" and China as "my ancestral land." 

It's strange, therefore, that the book lacks interview material with Taiwanese writers. Nevertheless, the research into published material on Taiwan appears extremely thorough. What this book shows is what many people have long known, that Taiwan is the most progressive place for a gay and lesbian identity in all East Asia, with the possible exception of Japan.  
Canada Unveils Gay Marriage Rules, Activists Angry
Reuters
By David Ljunggren
July 17, 2003
 
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government on Thursday took a major step toward legalizing gay marriages, shrugging off protests from pro-family activists who said Ottawa was destroying a bedrock of society. 

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said he had sent draft legislation on gay marriages to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask for its opinion. Once the Supreme Court signs off on the legislation, the government will allow members of Parliament to hold a free vote on the bill. 

The Liberal government promised to act quickly last month after an Ontario court cited Canada's Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms and said gay marriages should be legalized. A British Columbia court followed suit and hundreds of same- sex 
couples have tied the knot in the two provinces. 

"By expanding the definition of marriage to recognize the union of same-sex couples, we are recognizing that all Canadians have the right to equality under the Charter," Cauchon told a news conference. 

"(This) does not take away any rights from opposite sex couples, nor does it erode the significance or sanctity of 
marriage. On the contrary, it provides more Canadians with access to the institution of marriage." 

He said the draft legislation would protect the freedom of religious belief and said no religious groups would be forced to carry out gay marriage ceremonies. 

The federal government -- which has the constitutional right to define marriage -- wants the definition changed to "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others" from the lawful union of a man and a woman. 

The Supreme Court is unlikely to rule before October, which means a vote in Parliament could well be put off until next year. Opinion polls show a narrow majority of Canadians back the idea of gay marriage. 

Critics pointed out that as recently as 1999, the Liberals had promised to take all necessary steps to preserve the 
traditional definition of marriage. 

"It's a radical flip-flop from the government...it's left us saddened and outraged. Our heads are spinning," said Jay 
Barwell of Focus on the Family, which has already said it intends to appeal the Ontario court decision. 

"The historical definition (of marriage) is the underpinning definition of societies from time immemorial and this 
government has undertaken to change something that wasn't theirs to change, quite frankly. The Canadian government didn't invent marriage." 

Gay activists were delighted, saying it would help create a more just society in Canada. 

"We have access to pensions, we have access to inheritance rights, but without the benefit of marriage those in a same sex relationship are still relegated to a second-class position," said Stephen Lock of the group Egale Canada. 

Many same sex couples getting married in Ontario and British Columbia are from the United States, where gay marriages are forbidden. Vermont allows civil unions but not full marriages. 
 
Canada proposes same-sex marriage law
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
July 17, 2003
 
SUMMARY: The Canadian government proposed a new law on Thursday that would guarantee gay marriage rights throughout the country. 

Prompted by last month's Ottawa court ruling that established the right of same-sex couples to marry, the Canadian 
government proposed a new law on Thursday that would guarantee gay marriage rights throughout the country. 

Rather than appeal Ottawa's historic ruling, the government revised the legal definition of marriage and submitted the draft bill, known as the Act Respecting Certain Aspects of Legal Capacity for Marriage, to the Supreme Court for review. If the justices find the bill is constitutional, it will go to Parliament for a vote. 

"Marriage for civil purposes is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others," the draft bill states.  

According to a CBC News report, the government is asking the Supreme Court to consider three specific issues: Parliament's legal authority to define marriage, the proposed bill's compatibility with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and constitutional protection for religious leaders who refuse to sanctify same-sex marriages. 

If the law passes -- and previously stated lawmaker support suggests it will -- Canada will become the third country to 
legalize same-sex marriages. 

Many couples, however, are proceeding as if the federal legality is a done deal. After the court ruling in Ottawa and a 
similar one in British Columbia, gay and lesbian couples have been getting marriage licenses in the two provinces. 

American couples have also obtained marriage licenses there, since there is no Canadian residency requirement. As of 
Tuesday, Toronto's city hall had granted 56 licenses to American couples, Canadian Press reported. 

On Wednesday, Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Church, married his partner of 18 years, Phillip Ray De Blieck, with a ceremony in Toronto. 

"I thank God for Canada, for the progressive judges who did this," Perry said during a news conference. "You beat us (
Americans) all the way around." 

Legal experts expect that the validity of the Canadian licenses in the United States will soon be tested in U.S. courts.
State high court keeps gays in suspense
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
By Ann Rostow
July 16, 2003
 
SUMMARY: Where is the same-sex marriage ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? The deadline passed on Monday. 

Where is the same-sex marriage ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court? As a general rule, the court issues its opinions within 130 days of oral arguments, a deadline that passed on Monday. 

According to the Boston Globe, the clerk of the court informed lawyers in the case of Goodrich v. Department of Public Health on Monday morning that the opinion would not be released on schedule, giving no indication of 
when the widely anticipated decision might be handed down. Although the court is no longer sitting, opinions will continue to be released throughout July and August. 

The 130-day deadline, said the Globe, is an "administrative goal," which is waived by a majority of the justices in about 10 percent of all cases. The delay indicates that the issues involved are particularly difficult and/or controversial, characteristics that indeed suit the Goodrich case. 

ught by the New England-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the case challenges Massachusetts' ban on gay and lesbian marriages on behalf of seven same-sex couples. If the court rules in GLAD's favor, and if the justices follow the June 10 example of the Ontario Court of Appeals by making such a ruling effective at once, same-sex couples will be able to marry in the United States for the first time. On the heels of the Canada ruling and the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, such a development would be a dramatic culmination to an extraordinary summer in gay rights history.  

Boston lawyer Sander Rikleen, who has researched the habits of the Bay State's high court, told the Globe that the court missed its deadline in 12 of 181 cases in the 1999-2000 session. In four of those instances, the opinions were released just a few days after time expired. In another, an opinion was released over two months later. Rikleen said the reasons for the delay are impossible to guess. But the bottom line is that the justices are still working on the decision. "If the cake isn't baked," he said, "you don't take it out." 

GLAD's Executive Director Gary Buseck agreed that the situation was inscrutable. "I think anybody's tea-leaf reading is 
more a projection of their own thought process than any insight into what the court might be thinking." 

Despite these warnings, it's tempting to assume that the court is weighing the impact of the Lawrence opinion. Although Goodrich is exclusively a question of Massachusetts state law, the June 26 Supreme Court decision may bolster a conclusion in favor of the plaintiff couples.
 
Frist revises marriage amendment support
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
By Jen Christensen
July 16, 2003
 
SUMMARY: New statements from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggest the Republican leadership may be backing off from a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. 

Support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bans gay marriage may be waning, as a recent statement from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests the Republican leadership may be backing off the idea. 

At present, 39 Republicans and five Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors of the anti-gay marriage amendment, which was introduced in the House in May. 

Last month Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told ABC's "This Week" he supports the amendment, saying "I 
absolutely do. Of course I do." But more recently, discussing a case in Massachusetts' highest court that could grant gay 
marriage in that state any day now, he said if the court legalized gay marriage, "one alternative is a constitutional 
amendment." 

Frist's subtle shift in support seems to be falling more in line with the White House. President Bush said he'd take a 
wait-and-see attitude toward the amendment. 

President Bush (news - web sites), Frist still maintains marriage should be between a man and a woman, not, as Frist added, "two men or three men or four men, or one man or one woman or two women and three women or three women and three men."  

"Well, Frist is certainly not embracing gay marriage; while he may be backing off, it seems like he's mocking the whole idea," said John Marble, the spokesman for Stonewall Democrats. "We still need to work hard to make sure an amendment like this never gets off the ground." 

"We welcome any shift in our direction with Frist's policy," said Mark Mead, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans. "Frist is a smart and competent leader. My partner could tell you I was speechless when I heard his original comments in favor of the amendment, and it takes a lot to leave me speechless." 

Mead said he thinks Frist was just reacting to what he called the "religious right's temper tantrum" after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which overturned sodomy laws. 

In the meantime, the Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliffe issued a statement on Wednesday against the amendment. 

"It is wrong to write discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans into the Constitution or to deny any American 
equality under the law," he said. 

Both the Stonewall Democrats and the Log Cabin Republicans said they are worried that there could be a backlash against the GLBT community if the Massachusetts court allows for gay marriage. 

Both said they will continue to work on members of their respective parties to keep this amendment out of the Constitution.  
Democrats Address Gay Rights Forum
Associated Press Writer
By NEDRA PICKLER
July 15, 2003
 
WASHINGTON - Most of the Democrats running for the White House said Tuesday that gay couples should have the same legal rights as husbands and wives, but the leading candidates stopped short of supporting homosexuals' right to marry. 

The only three candidates who say federal law should protect the right to same-sex marriages are Al Sharpton, former 
Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio. Most of the others at a 
presidential forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign back the less controversial right to gay civil unions. 

The audience hissed when Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts said marriage is a right reserved in America for men and women. 

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

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

Under tough questioning from moderator Sam Donaldson, Dean said the distinction of the word "marriage" is the hang-up in the states "because marriage has a long, long history as a religious institution." 

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

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

But the issue of gay marriage is sure to dog the candidates ¡X both the Democrats and Republican President Bush ¡X in next year's election. Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said the group also would invite Bush and other Republicans to future forums, which elicited laughter that suggested the crowd didn't believe the president would appear before the group. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two of the nine presidential candidates did not appear at the forum, Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Edwards of North Carolina. 
 
Presidential candidates discuss gay issues
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
By Ari Bendersky
July 15, 2003
 
[News roundup: Election 2004] On Tuesday in Washington, D.C., the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) hosted the first-ever forum for U.S. presidential candidates to focus on GLBT issues and concerns. 

Seven of the nine Democratic candidates participated in the event, titled "Speaking of Equality," to talk specifically on issues like gay marriage, "don't ask, don't tell," HIV/AIDS treatment and care and more. 

ABC News' Sam Donaldson moderated the event, allowing each candidate time for both opening and closing statements, with a segment for questions in between. While each candidate attempted to showcase their past political support of gay rights, Donaldson focused mainly on the topics of gay marriage and gays in the military during his question/answer forum, possibly because these were the areas where all the candidates didn't agree. 

"I think it makes sense that he would focus on the issues where there might be differences," Dave Noble, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, the nation's largest Democratic GLBT organization, told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "The world is changing and we've won some major battles. I think this is sort of what the country's talking about now." 

Prior to the forum, each candidate, including Sens. John Edwards and Bob Graham who were not present at Tuesday's event, submitted responses to a questionnaire supplied by the HRC. Most candidates supported the majority of topics covered, including the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), legislation covering sexual orientation and gender identity in regard to a federal hate crimes policy, increased funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and research, and federal domestic partner benefits. 

However, only three, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, endorsed gay marriage.  

"That's like asking: Do I support black or white marriage? We must stop the separation of gays and lesbians from other 
Americans," said Sharpton. "If people respect you, it's not about gays and lesbians; it's about human beings having the 
right to marry who they choose." 

Everyone agreed that gays and lesbians deserved the same rights granted to married heterosexual couples by both state and federal governments, even if some felt the act of "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman. On the flipside, all of the candidates spoke out against Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's support for a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the United States. 

Currently, married couples enjoy more than 1,000 benefits denied to same-sex couples. 

"The primary obstacle to achieve these rights is the Defense of Marriage Act," said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. "This is the barrier to all equal rights under the law." Dean, who signed into law the nation's first -- and only -- civil union bill, said marriage should be left to the churches, but that the word marriage "is the hang-up in the states." 

Rep. Dick Gephardt, whose daughter, Chrissy, is openly gay and living with her lesbian partner in Washington, agreed with Dean on marriage, but still pushes for gays to have the same rights afforded to straight couples. 

"My belief is the civil union is something that could be accomplished," he said. "We've come a long way. Minds are being changed and opened. If we continue to work and advocate and inform, I fully believe civil union laws can be expressed."  

Another area where nearly all of the candidates agreed was repealing "don't ask, don't tell," the law that prohibits any 
openly gay or lesbian person from serving in the country's armed forces. The law was put forth in the early part of the 
Clinton administration, and each of the candidates vowed to reverse it save Bob Graham, who said it's a decision for the military's leaders. 

"It is a crying shame that people with enormous talent and skill are denied the right to serve even when it is against our national security," said Sen. John Kerry. "There's a process of transition you have to go through, but I have pledged that every person in the United States will be allowed to serve in the military." 

Overall, Dean appeared the favorite based on the loud cheers and applause as he stepped to the podium, but both Sharpton and Moseley Braun also garnered obvious support from the bipartisan crowd. 

"I know I may not look like any president you've seen before, but I have all the credentials," said Moseley Braun, who 
talked about having the most comprehensive record reflecting commitment toward equality. "It's time to take the 'men only' sign off the White House door." 

Many of the candidates voiced opposition and disappointment toward President George W. Bush since he took office two and a half years ago. Bush and other Republicans were absent from Tuesday's forum but were invited to participate in a similar forum hosted by HRC. So far, none have accepted. 

"Our community deserves to know where the president of the United States stands on fundamental issues of fairness and equality," said National Stonewall Democrats' Noble. "We are hopeful that President Bush will follow the lead of the nine Democratic candidates in advocating equality for all Americans. So far he has not." 
Marriage amendment lashed on two fronts
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
By David Ryan Alexander
July 15, 2003
 
[News roundup: Same-sex marriage] Efforts were launched this week to rally Congress and the gay community against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is making its way through the House and received new life with a recent endorsement by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.  

Three U.S. representatives, Barney Frank, D-Mass., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., sent a letter on Monday urging every U.S. representative to oppose the amendment. 

The proposed amendment would add to the U.S. Constitution language essentially banning same-sex marriage on a federal level. It was introduced in the House, for a second year in a row, on May 21. 

Frist said in an interview on June 29 on the ABC program "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what has 
traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and woman. So I would support the amendment." 

Rep. Frank told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network that initially he had not been concerned with the amendment passing, but said, "It seemed to me that, because of Frist, some of the Republicans that don't think this is a good idea are now feeling pressure." 

To offset this pressure, the letter focused on statements from another high-ranking Republican, Vice President Dick Cheney, 
who stated different views about legislation for same-sex couples during his campaign: "The fact of the matter ... is that 
matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's 
appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area." 

In addition to the effort in Congress, Robin Tyler and John Aravosis, two of the founders of the StopDrLaura.com campaign, which boycotted Dr. Laura Schlessinger's television show three years ago, launched a Web campaign on Monday to try and stop the amendment. 

"The religious right has now made passage of an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution its number one priority,"  
stated Aravosis. "Gay Americans and their allies must make fighting this legislative bigotry our number one priority."  

According to Aravosis, the new site, DontAmend.com, aims to "create the largest mobilization of gays and their allies in the history of the world." 

For the amendment to pass it must receive two-thirds of the vote in a joint session of Congress and then be ratified by 38 state legislatures within 10 years. 
 
Vermont Commentary: Gay marriages deserve one word: Congratulations
Darren Allen writes weekly about Vermont issues, people and events. 
You can reach him at darren.allen@timesargus.com
July 12, 2003
 
The administration of Gov. James Douglas last week made news by figuring out how to provide Medicaid nursing-home benefits to same-sex couples without breaking the stupid and close-minded federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

In case you missed it, the legal maneuvering by the state's welfare department ensures that partners in a civil union are treated no differently than partners in a heterosexual marriage when it comes to determining their eligibility for Medicaid -funded long-term care. To do this, the state needed to make sure no federal money was spent to provide benefits to civil union partners, because doing so runs counter to federal law. 

And while the governor and his top social welfare officials are to be commended for doing the right thing, it's way past the time in Vermont when such a move should even be news. To be precise, it's more than three years past the time that such a development makes the news. 

Since July 1, 2000, it has been illegal in this state to deny the rights and responsibilities afforded to men and women in a marriage to people joined in a civil union. The law - Act 91 of the 2000 legislative session - is fundamentally humane in its scope, acknowledging that "Vermont's history as an independent republic and as a state is one of equal treatment and respect for all Vermonters." 

Equal treatment and respect may be the law of the land here, but, as last week's Medicaid gyrations demonstrate, it has yet to catch on in the rest of the country: Thirty-seven states have laws on the books declaring that marriage is reserved solely for the union of a man and a woman, without Vermont's extension of equal rights to gay couples. 

And in Congress, a first-term member of the House of Representatives has proposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages. "A large majority of American people, nonreligious and religious, supports the idea of marriage being solely between a woman and a man," said Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican from eastern Colorado, in an interview with The
Associated Press. "It has been a tradition for over 200 years in the U.S., and a basic tenet of every major religion in the world, not just Judaism and Christianity." 

Musgrave's decidedly un-Christian and discriminatory amendment has the support, so far, of 25 co-sponsors, as well as the backing of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. 

Let's hope she fails. 

One of the most frustrating aspects surrounding the issue of gay marriage is that it should not be an issue - if two people love each other enough to entwine their emotional, financial and physical lives forever, why should anyone object? 

As of Friday, Vermont had recorded 5,786 civil unions over the last three years, according to Rich McCoy, the state's public health statistics chief. 

One of those unions - celebrated and memorialized on a Web site for a Wilmington bed and breakfast - was between two men from Kentucky. They were joined in the gardens surrounding the 200-year-old Averill Stand inn last September by Wilmington Justice of the Peace Ethel Childs. 

"Union in its deepest and truest sense is a spiritual union; the uniting of two souls. It is two persons working toward a goal - two souls becoming one in hope, desire and aspiration," she said during a ceremony in which she stressed the importance of a public acknowledgment of commitment to such a union. 

She continued: "May you love and cherish each other, may you keep the vows made between you, and live together in faithfulness and patience, in wisdom and happiness, that your home may be a haven of blessing and peace for you and your family and friends." 

What's the harm in that? 
 
Study finds gay unions brief [an extremely biased view point!]
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Amy Fagan
 
A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average - even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages." 

The study of young Dutch homosexual men by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service, published in May in the journal AIDS, mirrors findings of past research. 

Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows. 

Same-sex "marriage" has gained new attention since a Supreme Court decision last month struck down state laws against homosexual behavior. Conservative activists say they expect the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts to rule this weekend on whether to recognize homosexual "marriages." 

The Dutch study - which focused on transmission of HIV - found that men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

Earlier studies also indicated that homosexual men are not monogamous, even when they are involved in long-term relationships. 

In "The Male Couple," published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity. 

"Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other," the authors said. "Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others."  

Such findings show how recognition of same-sex unions would "erode the ideal" of traditional marriage, Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute. 

"They're redefining what it means to be monogamous," Mr. LaBarbara said. "It's just preposterous to claim that these relationships even approximate normal, steady relationships." 

The Amsterdam study is "proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed," Mr.LaBarbara said. 

But homosexual groups say recent data indicate that homosexual relationships look increasingly like heterosexual marriage.  

About 40 percent of homosexual couples had been together in a household for at least five years, compared to roughly 60 percent of married heterosexual couples who had been together at least that long, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data produced for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation. 

The HRC analysis found that relationships were shortest for unmarried heterosexual partners living together, only 18 percent of whom had been together in the household for at least five years. 

"Anecdotally, there's quite a bit of evidence that as gays and lesbians are becoming more accepted, you're finding greater levels of stability," said Gary Gates, a researcher for the Urban Institute who compiled the data for HRC, which supports same-sex "marriage." 

Mr. Gates said 25 percent of male homosexual couples had children in the household and 38 percent of lesbian couples had children in the household, compared with 48 percent of heterosexual married couples. And 66 percent of the male homosexual couples and 68 percent of lesbian couples owned their home, compared with 81 percent of heterosexual married couples. He said these are signs of increasing stability. 

David Smith, spokesman for HRC, dismissed the Amsterdam study, saying he personally has been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years and, "most gay people I know have been in relationships many, many years and they're absolutely monogamous."  

He said his personal experience is that homosexuals settle down just like heterosexuals. 

He also said those throwing out "wild charges" that homosexuals are promiscuous are hypocritical because they will not let same-sex couples have marriage rights, which would provide even more stability under the law. 

But Mr. LaBarbara said marriage would not change the promiscuity he called "rampant" among homosexuals. He said on the contrary, same-sex "marriage" would just "erode [marriage] further." 

The state of Vermont has allowed civil unions between same-sex couples since 2000, and a study by two University of Vermont psychology professors compared homosexual couples in civil unions with homosexual couples not in unions, and married heterosexual couples. 

Among the Vermont findings, the overwhelming majority of women - both lesbians and married heterosexuals - felt it was not acceptable to have sex outside of their primary relationship. However, 79 percent of married men felt sex outside marriage was not OK, compared to 34 percent of homosexual men in committed relationships and 50 percent of homosexual men in civil unions. 

But such open relationships - in which homosexual men accept that their partners will have sex with others - are not harmful, said Anne Peplau, a psychology professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. 

"There is clear evidence that gay men are less likely to have sexually exclusive relationships than other people - but this is not typically harmful to their relationships because partners agree that it's acceptable," said Miss Peplau. "Many heterosexual men also are non-monogamous, but may be more secretive about their behavior." 

However, Peter Sprigg, director of Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council, pointed to a 1997 national survey published in the Journal of Sex Research that found 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. 

According to 2001 data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 67 percent of first marriages last 10 years, and 50 percent last 20 years. Marriages involving teenagers are more prone to divorce; for marriages in which the bride is at least age 20, about 60 percent last 20 years, according to NCHS data. 
 
Minority Report: Learning Curve
by Bonnie J. Morris
July 10, 2003
 
Just like that, I'm not a criminal any more. With the Supreme Court ruling
on Lawrence v. Texas, I can cross Key Bridge from Georgetown into Virginia
without transforming into a felonious sodomite en route. Now, in good
conscience, I can break my hard rule against spending money in the
Commonwealth of Virginia by perhaps downing a latte at National Airport
before I grab that Delta shuttle to New York to visit my girlfriend in
Queens. 

How did you react to the Court's gay rights decision? I spent an exuberant,
optimistic afternoon on June 27th e-mailing pals far and wide: "I'M FREE!"
-- and even changed the outgoing message on my answering machine to brag,
"You have reached the home of a free and equal citizen of the United
States." Many of my friends (and exes) e-mailed back, confessing to their
own tears of joy, while others predicted a longer road of struggle ahead.
For the moment, however, I sought only celebration. I bounced over to 17th
Street expecting something akin to the end of World War II in Paris, but as
usual, the staid queers of D.C. did not choose confetti-strewing mayhem. Yet
there were unmistakable signs of change: heads held higher, American flags
suddenly waving from gay households, strangers smiling at strangers in the
ice-cream-drippy night. Looking out over the laughing crowds going in and
out of gay restaurants, I wondered: how will this ruling alter us? 

For centuries we've been outlaws. That has seldom been a boast, but it's
often been an attitude: legally, we've been a persecuted minority, entitled
to our activism. The threat of losing a leadership role, a job, child
custody, or a potential adoption, based on state sodomy laws, haunted many
of my friends. Others -- Bible scholars -- spoke endlessly to the excellent
point that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah really seems to be about rape and
incest, not homosexual activity or oral sex per se. Rape and incest continue
to occur at a national rate that shames our society, yet assaults on women
and kids seem far less distressing to the conservative judiciary than
committed, same-sex love. But now, at least, a legal distinction has been
made, simultaneously freeing straight couples to enjoy "sodomy" themselves
without fear of arrest. 

So have we joined the mainstream overnight? Hardly. That despised-minority
status must be dismantled through endless, tiring work. And I had occasion
to think about what it means to be a minority earlier this spring when a
student asked me to speak on a "minority women and leadership" panel at
George Washington University. On that panel, sponsored by the campus NAACP,
I would be the only white woman. 

At first I assumed I'd been invited because my students perceive me as an
ally in the fight against racism, and an advocate for women of color and
their ongoing empowerment in academia. Then I privately acknowledged to
myself that I, too, might identify as a minority woman facing challenges to
leadership in America -- because I'm gay. The student who had invited me
made clear that that was why I had been sought, and the NAACP group hoped
I'd speak about my own experiences. 

I re-read an excellent article Henry Louis Gates. Jr. once contributed to
The New Yorker -- "Blacklash?" It began with "All prejudices are not equal.
But that doesn't mean there's no comparison between the predicaments of gays
and blacks." 

Gates had addressed the "demonization" of gays as a "species" and
acknowledged the shame and very threat of violence experienced by despised
minorities. He also acknowledged that whereas many African-Americans sought
refuge in church networks throughout civil rights challenges, in the case of
gay rights, church doctrine has often been a key oppressor, rejecting and
excluding. And, of course, in the center of the overlapping worlds are the
identities of gay men and women of color, who learn racial but not gay
survival codes from parents. I spoke to these connections from my seat on
the panel. 

The defeat of sodomy laws, following so closely after the Court's avowal of
affirmative action, links two battles against minority oppression. Though I
have overheard white gays trash affirmative action as often as I have heard
black and Hispanic heterosexuals trash gay people, I believe we are closer
now to truth-telling about the toll of invisibility, under-representation,
and cultural hatreds that weigh on minority communities of any kind. 

I am only beginning to examine what it means to be redefined as legal, and
to understand what psychological damage the mantle of illegality has meant,
over time, for my community. 

Bonnie J. Morris, Ph.D., is on the women's studies faculty at George
Washington University. She can be reached at bmorris@metroweekly.com
<mailto:bmorris@metroweekly.com> . 
 
Lesbian Mom Beaten Unconscious In Front Of Partner & Kids In Homophobic Attack< /a>
365Gay.com Newscenter Boston Bureau
by Michael J. Meade
Posted: July 11, 2003 11:58 a.m. ET
 
(Boston, Massachusetts) A lesbian couple is speaking out about a homophobic
attack that left one of the women nearly dead and injured their children. 

The attack took occurred during Fourth of July celebrations at an East
Boston park. Lisa Craig and Debbie Riley had taken their their two girls,
ages 4 and 9, to Piers Park to watch fireworks. 

The woman say the trouble began when a group of rowdy teens who had been
drinking began harassing them. The couple and their kids went to another
area of the park, but when they stopped at an ice cream truck they again
encountered the teens. 

The group had been scuffling among themselves and bumped into the couple's
children, pushing one against the truck and knocking the other to the
ground. 

In an interview with the Boston Herald, Riley said that when Craig told the
teens to "move it along,'' one of the girls " sucker-punched her in the
head." The teens then threw Craig to the ground. Her head hit the pavement
and she fell unconscious while the teens continued to kick her in the head.

"I screamed, `Lisa stay with us.' I could feel the lump (on her head)
growing in my hands,'' Riley told the Herald, recalling how she cradled her
unconscious partner. 

Craig underwent two operations. Doctors had to cut open her skull to drain
the blood. She received more than 200 stitches. 

The attack is under investigation by the Boston Police Department's
Community Disorders Unit, which investigates hate crimes.

c365Gay.comR 2003
 
Big Business Targets Gay Customers
Companies Eager For Piece Of Multi-Billion Market

Gay purchasing power now surpasses $450 billion a year, by some estimates,
and big companies are taking notice. 

Advertisement Featuring Gay Couple <a href="http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0707/2316417_200X150.jpg" target=_blank> Travel Web site Orbitz.com is just one of several major companies now catering to gay and
lesbian customers. In fact, the company is now airing a gay-targeted ad on
two cable networks. 

Volvo is also going after a newly recognized gay demographic: families. Ford
is doing the same. 

Wes Combs is president of the D.C. marketing firm Ford hired to target the
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender market. 

SURVEY 

Should gay couples be allowed to get married? 

Yes, there's no reason they shouldn't.
No, it is wrong.

I disagree with homosexuality, but I think it's their choice to do what they
want.

I'm fine with homosexuality, but I think marriage is a union between a woman
and a man.

Results

"Gay and lesbian people are becoming far more a part of America's fabric ...
so companies that reach out to them in a smart way are going to be able to
take advantage of earning their brand loyalty and earning their dollars,"
Combs said. 

Car rental giant Avis is aiming to attract gay couples by advertising that
it will automatically place same-sex partners on rental contracts. 

IBM doesn't limit its advertising to gay consumers. It is going after
gay-owned companies in a new multi-million marketing program, according to
the company's director of GLBT sales and talent. 

"We're in it for the long term. We're committed to it because we recognize
we want to be where our customers are," Joseph Bertolotti said. "And we want
GLBT business owners and decision makers in large enterprises that we're
committed to them and their businesses solutions." 

A quick look in the current issue of the national gay newsmagazine, the
Advocate, shows ads from all kinds of companies. 

According to Daryl Herrschaft, of the Human Rights Campaign's work net
division, that means big business sees a big market with a lot of disposable
income. 

"I think the corporate policies that we see being put in place say one thing
... that fairness affects the bottom line," Herrschaft said. 

If advertisers were skittish in the past, most have ceased to be. Looking at
TV's primetime schedule featuring shows like Six Feet Under, Queer As Folk
and Will and Grace, the gay market is becoming more mainstream. 

Copyright 2003 by nbc5i.com <mailto:webstaff@nbc5i.com> . All rights
reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
Gay rights protestors disrupt Synod
BBC News UK Edition
Saturday, 12 July, 2003, 19:18 GMT 20:18 UK
 
A protest by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell disrupted the Church of England General Synod on Saturday. 
The 30-minute protest came as the Church of England's governing body has tried to defuse the row over the appointment of a gay bishop by postponing a Synod debate on the issue. 

Mr Tatchell walked on stage with six young supporters on Saturday morning and told the synod: "You can see the voice of bigotry and unreason here today. 

"Your ears are deaf and your eyes are blind. You do not witness the suffering of gay and lesbian people." 

Mr Tatchell accused the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, of "betraying his own principles" and told the synod he had "bowed to pressure from theological homophobes". 

'Wrong time for debate' 

Richard Thomas, director of communications for the Oxford Diocese, told Tatchell: "I can tell you now that he (Jeffrey John) would not approve of what you are doing and he would want you to withdraw." 

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, told members of the General Synod in York at an emergency discussion on Friday night that it was the wrong time to discuss the dispute, especially without Dr John's presence. 


The chairman of the synod's business committee, the Very Reverend Michael Perham, the Dean of Derby, told the meeting the " time critical element" had disappeared after Dr John's withdrawal and the issue would be better debated next February.  

Rev Perham said the intervening time would give the church "the chance to reflect, to take counsel with our friends, perhaps to engage outside this chamber with those with whom we disagree". 

Dr Williams agreed and added: "I do not actually believe a plea for a time for reflection is a soft option, unless you believe reflection is a soft option." 

Debate postponed 

The archbishop was warmly applauded for the decision but BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said it is clear the problems the church faces over the issue of gay clergy are not going to go away. 

The Rev Rod Thomas, of evangelical campaigning group, Reform, said while he supported a postponement of the debate, it had to happen sometime. 

"Reflection is difficult and we need to do that as a church. 

"The church has stared huge division in the face. It's been to the edge of the abyss and looked over and as a result, it's taken the decision that it doesn't want to go there. 

"It now needs to give itself time to draw breath and think." 

Exclusion 

The meeting later on heard a number of claims that black people are being excluded from aspects of church life. 

The claims came as members agreed to adopt recommendations of a new report on issues arising from the inquiry into the murder of south London teenager Stephen Lawrence. 

Statistics revealed in the discussion showed just over 3% of those on the current electoral roll of Church members are from an "ethnic background". 

The Reverend Simon Pothen, from Pinner, west London, said: "We utterly fail as a church if we don't adequately reflect our society. We don't do that at present." 


The synod is now expected to turn its attention to the Anglican-Methodist covenant, an agreement for the two churches to work together. 

Protestors accused the Church of prejudice (BBC photo)
 
Lords vote down anti-gay Section 28 law
Gay.com U.K.
Friday, July 11, 2003 / 04:24 PM
 
England's House of Lords voted 180-130 to defeat Tory Baroness Blatch's plans to replace Section 28 -- the infamous law banning the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools -- with parental vetting of sex education. 

The vote followed an emotionally charged debate and now paves the way for the Local Government Bill that abolishes Section 28. 

Stonewall hailed Wednesday's House of Lords vote to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act as "a triumph for tolerance over prejudice." 

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall chief executive, said: "Section 28 was a pernicious piece of legislation deliberately framed in order to stigmatize a minority group. We're delighted that the House of Lords has demonstrated a willingness to listen to reason at last." 

Section 28 was proposed and enacted in 1988 while conservative former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was in office.
Popular Clownfish Can Change Sex, Size
Associated Press
By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer
Wed Jul 9, 8:54 PM ET
 
Scientists could have written an R-rated, gender-bending plot twist to Disney's "Finding Nemo": Clownfish have a natural ability to change their sex. 

Clownfish, the aquarium pet of choice since the release of the animated movie, live in such a rigid social structure in the wild that if one of the dominant breeding adults is removed, the size, status and even sex of the other clownfish change rapidly to return the group to the status quo. 

"If the female of the group dies, the male changes sex and becomes the breeding female," said Cornell University evolutionary biologist Peter Buston, "while the largest non-breeder becomes the breeding male." 

Some other species of fish are known to do the same thing. 

The study of the exotic reef dwellers, named for their outrageous colors, appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature . 

Buston observed 97 groups of clownfish living on reefs in Papua New Guinea. 

Buston did not address how the fish change sex. 

Clownfish are scooped into a net at a pet store in Florida, June 12, 2003. Scientists could have written an R-rated, gender -bending plot twist to Disney's ``Finding Nemo'': Clownfish have a natural ability to change their sex. (AP Photo/Jill Barton) 
Gay Democrats take on marriage ban
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Jen Christensen
Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / 05:17 PM
 
After a unanimous vote from its board, the National Stonewall Democrats (NSD), the national organization of GLBT Democrats, announced on Wednesday it will deny support to anyone in Congress who signs on to the proposed federal marriage amendment.  

House Joint Resolution 56, more commonly known as the Federal Marriage Amendment, would add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids same-sex marriages. The measure has not been introduced in the Senate, but Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he supports it. 

"Even Bob Barr, who initiated the Defense of Marriage Act, the big anti-gay marriage law, said this amendment isn't needed," said John Marble, a spokesman for the National Stonewall Democrats. "Our withdrawal of support is just one of the many ways we are working with Democrats to make sure Democrats don't sign onto this amendment." 

"I think we may be surprised at just how many people could sign on, even our closest supporters," said Mark Mead, the spokesmen for the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest GOP group. 

Mead said it's too early to know if his group will deny financial support to candidates who support the amendment, but he said the LRC is lobbying Republicans not to support this resolution. 

"But it's going to be tough," Mead said. "The chiefs of staff I'm talking to are getting so many calls in favor of this amendment. I wish I had better news." 

Stonewall's withdrawal of support may persuade Democrats, particularly in light of the group's ramped-up efforts to raise money for candidates who will support gay issues. As a grassroots organization, Stonewall has traditionally provided more volunteers than money to candidates, but this year, Marble said Stonewall's PAC intends to spend thousands of dollars in support of candidates who support gay rights. 

There are four Democratic co-sponsors of the amendment who will lose Stonewall's support: Reps. Mike McIntyre (NC), Ralph Hall (TX), Charles Stenholm (TX) and Colin Peterson (MN). 

None of the Democratic sponsors of the resolution returned the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network's calls by deadline. 

FEC records show Stonewall hasn't contributed money to their campaigns in the past, but Marble said there are several Stonewall chapters in each of the representatives' districts who have provided endorsements and volunteered support in the past. 

"These are conservative Democrats," said Marble. "But what they have to realize is that in the Democratic Party gay issues are no longer just liberal issues -- gay issues cross ideology -- and conservatives, moderates and liberals all believe in gay rights within the Democratic party. This move on our part is just another way for us to educate political candidates that they should be supporting gay issues." 
Vietnam veteran sues over 'don't ask' rule
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Randol White
Tuesday, July 8, 2003 / 05:04 PM
 
A decorated Vietnam veteran discharged from the U.S. Army is the first to challenge the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent Lawrence v. Texas ruling. 

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Loomis was discharged from the Army in 1997 on the grounds that a videotape taken from his home showed him involved in consensual sex with another male. The discharge board members unanimously referred to homosexuality as a "sickness" or indicated "no tolerance" for it. 

Bolstered by the high court's landmark decision last month to decriminalize gay sex among consenting adults, Loomis is challenging the discharge board's decision on constitutional grounds. 

The justices in Lawrence v. Texas stated in the majority opinion that the "right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention." 

The question being asked by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the organization that represented Loomis during his discharge proceedings, is whether the courts will treat the military the same as the civilian sector. 

Steve Ralls, SLDN director of communications, said, "Historically in the court's view, what is unconstitutional in civilian society is not necessarily unconstitutional in the armed forces." 

Four previous appellate courts have supported the Army's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was implemented by the Clinton administration in 1993 as a way to deal with gays in the military. According to SLDN, Pentagon records show 9,000 service members have been discharged under the rule. 

"It's impossible to predict the outcome of this case, but (Loomis') sodomy challenge most closely resembles the facts in the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision," said Ralls. 

In the Lawrence case, two men were arrested and jailed after police responded to a false emergency call and instead found the pair having sex in their home. 

"This case could strike a very significant blow against 'don't ask, don't tell" as well," Ralls said. 

Loomis' discharge came just eight days before he was set to retire, blocking his ability to receive a pension worth an estimated $1 million. He received a Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars and an Air Medal for his service in Vietnam. 
British Columbia permits gay marriage
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Ann Rostow
Tuesday, July 8, 2003 / 05:01 PM
 
As expected, the high court of British Columbia lifted its moratorium on same-sex marriage Tuesday, making a two-month-old ruling in favor of legal marriage effective immediately. 

On May 1, the British Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that opposite-sex restrictions on marriage violated the rights of Canadian same-sex couples under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the court then suspended its ruling until July of 2004 to give the government time to develop constitutional marriage policies. 

On June 10, the Ontario Court of Appeals came to the same conclusion, but ordered same-sex marriage legalized throughout the province at once. After a week or so of indecision, the federal government decided not to appeal the matter to the Canadian Supreme Court, and to work instead toward legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. 

Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs in the British Columbia case asked the court to reconsider its suspension, and, with no objection from either the federal or provincial governments, the court agreed. 

"Further delay in implementing the remedies will result in an unequal application of the law as between Ontario and British Columbia," the court wrote. 

According to the same-sex marriage activists at Equal Marriage, B.C. plaintiffs Anthony Porcino and Tom Graff were married in Vancouver within minutes of the announcement. 

A lower court in Quebec also issued a pro-marriage ruling last year, initiating the July 2004 deadline for government action. Rather than legalizing marriage immediately, however, the provincial government has pledged to abide by the eventual federal definition of marriage, which will likely read: "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."  

On Monday, a group of religious conservatives announced plans to petition the Canadian Supreme Court for the right to appeal the Ontario ruling. However, observers believe the court is not likely to grant third parties the necessary legal status to intervene. 

The Canadian government is drafting legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, and will submit it to the Supreme Court for an advisory ruling as early as this week, the Canadian Press reports. The main job of the court will be to confirm that the definition of marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction. As such, the recalcitrant province of Alberta will be forced to comply with national law. The court will not review the issue until it returns to session in October. 

The legislation is expected to pass handily when it finally reaches Parliament. Although the provincial courts have the ability to legalize marriage in Canada, the combination of a Supreme Court review and a parliamentary vote will end debate on the subject and establish a rock-solid national policy. 
 
Boston Globe backs gay marriage rights
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
July 8, 2003
 
As the top court in Massachusetts prepares to rule on same-sex marriage, the largest newspaper in New England urged the court on Tuesday to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians as a matter of constitutional fairness. 

In a lengthy editorial titled "For Gay Marriage," the Boston Globe said, "For all the legal acrobatics offered by opponents, it is hard to see how anything other than an animus toward gays and lesbians prevents them from obtaining the same 'benefits and protections' enjoyed by heterosexual couples." 

Last March the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in a case involving seven same-sex couples who have sued the state for the right to marry under civil law. A ruling is expected by Saturday, according to the state attorney general's office. 

Both gay marriage advocates and social conservatives are anxiously awaiting the court ruling, which cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is possible the court will declare same-sex marriages valid in the state. 

"(S)ociety, and the law, have already greatly expanded the definition of family, and civil marriage has been redefined as a partnership of equals," the newspaper editors wrote. "No doubt marriage between one man and one woman will continue to define the vast majority of unions. But that needn't be the only acceptable definition." 

The Globe is not the first to support marriage rights for same-sex couples, according to Reuters. The New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune have also published similar editorials. 
 
MSNBC fires Savage over anti-gay slurs
Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
Monday, July 7, 2003 / 04:43 PM
 
Michael Savage, the right-wing radio personality-turned-cable TV host known for attacking everything from gay rights to immigration policy, has been thrown off cable news network MSNBC after labeling a gay caller a "sodomite" and telling him he "should only get AIDS and die." 

During Saturday's telecast of Savage's controversial TV talk show, "Savage Nation," the host was talking to callers about in-flight behavior of passengers on commercial airlines. After Savage asked a caller if he was gay, and the caller said yes, the host began an anti-gay attack. 

"Oh, you're one of the sodomites," Savage said. "You should only get AIDS and die, you pig! How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig? You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage? You got nothing to do today? Go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. OK, do we have another nice caller who's busy and didn't have a nice night in the bathhouses, angry at me today?" 

In response to the comments, MSNBC announced on Monday it had fired Savage, effectively ending the show's troubled four- month run. 

"His comments were extremely inappropriate, and the decision was an easy one," MSNBC media relations vice president Jeremy Gaines told the Associated Press. 

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which has been pressuring MSNBC to cancel the show ever since the network began putting Savage on the air, was delighted. GLAAD helped lead a boycott of the show, pressuring major advertisers from showing their commercials during the TV version of "Savage Nation." 

"Frankly, it's about time," said GLAAD News Media Director Cathy Renna in response to Savage's cancellation. "Michael Savage's latest rant made the clearest possible case for why this kind of behavior has no place on any reputable news network. MSNBC has now found itself broadcasting exactly the kind of verbal assaults GLAAD's been warning them about for the past five months. And to their credit, MSNBC and NBC News have backed up their promises to hold Savage accountable for his behavior." 

A March 2003 article in the online magazine Salon profiled Savage, who was born Michael Alan Weiner in the Bronx. The son of a Russian Jewish immigrant, Savage got dual master's degrees in anthropology and botany before spending years traveling in the south seas looking for traditional herbal remedies to numerous illnesses. He moved to the San Francisco area in 1974, working as an herbalist and writing more than 18 books. 

In 1994 Savage made a mock radio show as a protest over not getting one of his books published, which launched his career as a nationally syndicated radio show host and a best-selling author. 

Calls to Savage's radio syndicate, the Oregon-based Talk Radio Network, looking for a response to the firing were not returned. 
 
Lesbian couple challenging gay adoption ban in Utah
Source: The Salt Lake Tribune
By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune reporter Elizabeth Neff contributed to this story.
July 7, 2003
 
[Photo]Kari Fuller, left, and Sonja Kaufman fear their family could be split
because under Utah law Kaufman cannot adopt 7-month-old daughter Karson. Gay
rights groups plan to use a recent Supreme Court decision to challenge the
law. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune) 

Sonja Kaufman and Kari Fuller's lives are cluttered with the accessories, the decisions, the sweet angst of family.  

Baby pictures hang in a cluster on the wall. An Elmo doll is tucked into
a corner. Children's stories and board games fill the bookshelves. Agonized
by sending the baby to day care every day, 38-year-old Fuller decided to
stay home to take care of the kids. And Kaufman and Fuller are beginning to
realize their two-bedroom townhome is too small for four. Just like any other family. But Kaufman and Fuller are no ordinary family. 

As lesbians in Utah, they face the prospect of having their household split if they separate or one of them dies. Utah law does not recognize their relationship or Kaufman's connection to one of their two children -- 7-month-old Karson. Although she formally adopted 6-year-old Angus, legislation added to state code in 2000 specifically prohibits her from becoming the legal parent of the daughter she is raising. 

The women are willing to upend their anonymous existence to become plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the adoption statute . 

"The law doesn't make sense to me," says 46-year-old Kaufman. "They find me fit to parent one child and then say I can't parent the other one. 

I'm parenting Karson anyway. But there's that little bit of anxiety, knowing that, in a way, you're living on the edge."  

It's not that they are gay rights activists. The women say they just want what is fair. And in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision to strike down sodomy laws, they figure now is the time to challenge Utah's ban on gay adoption.  

Human rights groups nationwide claim the ruling will be a catalyst to overturn state statutes that treat gay families differently, from restrictions on medical benefits to some states' refusal to recognize marriages between gay couples.  

Utah's gay community is more restrained, quietly strategizing. 

"All of the laws that discriminate against homosexuals in Utah have the same underpinnings -- the sodomy law," says attorney Laura Milliken Gray, who keeps a list of potential plaintiffs like Kaufman and Fuller. "They've always tried to use that as a sledgehammer to pound us over the head. That's gone now. The implications are huge." 

Utah advocates are not talking about the emotionally charged issues of partner benefits and same-sex marriage yet. Instead, they are focusing on the sympathetic instances of adoptions thwarted -- cases where their legal footing is well-grounded and political opposition is weaker. 

Two weeks ago, a split court determined a Texas sodomy law specifically aimed at homosexuals violated the right of consenting adults to choose what they do in their bedrooms, effectively nullifying similar laws in 13 other states, including Utah. Most of the justices concluded the law violated the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection provisions by singling out gays. 

Utah gay and lesbian advocates say the state's adoption law does the same thing. 

"Sodomy has been used to deny equal rights and equal protection to a group of people," wrote Paula Wolfe, director of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center of Utah in an opinion column for The Salt Lake Tribune. "Lesbians are more likely to lose custody of their natural-born children, and men and women without any criminal conviction are denied the right to adopt a child." 

Three years ago, lawmakers debated a bill drafted by Brigham Young University Law School professor Lynn Wardle to prohibit co-habiting adults, heterosexual or homosexual, from adopting children in state foster care or their partner's children.  

State Rep. Jackie Biskupski, the only openly gay member of the Legislature, says the adoption ban and Utah's sodomy law are carefully written to make it appear they do not target gays, but the effect is the same. 

"The laws are connected," the Salt Lake City Democrat says. "Clearly the
laws are discriminatory." 

At the time, gay rights groups protested loudly, pointing to the sodomy law as lawmakers' justification. Their complaints did no good. 

Scott Clark, an attorney on the Division of Child and Family Services board when it adopted administrative rules on which the law was based, says state leaders simply were looking out for the welfare of children. 

"The state has a compelling reason to protect children," Clark says. "Some relationships are sanctioned and people in those relationships can adopt. I'm not trying to criticize any other nonstandard relationship, but I think it is a legitimate interest of the state to prefer families with a mother and father." 

Sutherland Institute President Paul Mero backs up Clark. "A family is more than love," he says. "There is a structure involved. There are complementary roles between a male and a female in a family that a homosexual couple just does not have . 

"It doesn't matter whether we're talking about homosexual couples or a single woman who decides she needs to have a child in her life. Those children are at risk." 

Kaufman and Fuller defy Mero and Clark to prove that. 

Together for 10 years, the women say they are as committed as any heterosexual married couple. Although raised outside Utah -- Fuller in Illinois and Kaufman in Idaho -- both come from LDS backgrounds. They served missions for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Kaufman works for an insurance company. Fuller is a full-time mom. 

They were preparing to become foster parents when Fuller learned she was pregnant after the eighth round of artificial insemination. Kaufman managed to adopt Angus after he was born. But Karson was born after the adoption ban passed. Kaufman and Fuller share legal guardianship of the little girl so Kaufman's health benefits can cover her. But Karson still falls into a limbo that scares her mothers. 

"I worry what would happen if something happened to me," Fuller says. "I have family members who think it might be the right thing for them to do to get custody of my children. That's scary. I'm a little nervous." 

Before lawmakers changed the statute, Gray says, Utah judges reviewed gay adoptions as a matter of course. Only one of her cases was denied by a Davis County judge. 

Since the ban was adopted, DCFS records show even single-parent adoptions have dropped. In 1999, the year before the adoption ban went into effect, 30 single parents adopted foster children. The next year, that number dropped to 14. And last year, 12 single men and women adopted. 

Second-parent adoptions have been sanctioned by the highest courts of four states: Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Courts in 21 other states have allowed second-parent adoptions for same-sex couples.And internationally, gay couples are allowed to adopt in Ontario, Canada; London
and Manchester, England; and in the Netherlands. 

Two other states -- Florida and Mississippi -- block gay couples from adopting. And Arkansas restricts gays and lesbians from being foster parents. Two gay couples who are foster parents have challenged Florida's 16-year-old law. That case is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Gray has 40 families -- families where the nonbiological parent adopted the first child, but Utah's ban blocked adoption of the second -- on her list of potential clients. "In those families, the second child is a second-class citizen in their own home," Gray says. "One child gets two legal parents with all the benefits that includes -- Social Security, inheritance, health insurance. The other child doesn't get any of that. 

"Whenever you have a law that has no rational basis except discrimination, you get bizarre and irrational results like this. I've been waiting since that ban was passed to challenge it. I can't wait." 

While Gray anticipates the legal battle, some state lawmakers say she has her work cut out for her connecting the Supreme Court's decision on sodomy laws and the ban on gay adoptions. They question a lawsuit's chances.

"In my mind, they're two separate and distinct issues," says state Sen. John Valentine. "The sodomy law applies equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. And the adoption law was a public policy decision that
homosexual relationships are not a proper place for the raising of children.

"People who want to foster an agenda will try to argue the connection," the Orem Republican says. "But I find nothing in the words of the Supreme Court's ruling." 

But Mero figures the high court's decision might give gay rights groups a basis for litigation. 

"The Supreme Court punted and is going to allow a multiplicity of lawsuits," he says. 
 
Landmark Research Continues into GLBT Community
A Syracuse University, OpusComm Group GLBT Research Partnership
OpusComm Group, Inc.
Contact: Jeffrey Garber
315-637-2018
July 07, 2003 - 05:34pm [National] Business
 
Landmark Research Continues into GLBT Community A Syracuse University,
OpusComm Group GLBT Research Partnership 

Syracuse, NY - July 7, 2003 - The GLCensus Partnership, (Syracuse University
and OpusComm Group) are ready to unveil the third annual GLBT Consumer
Online Census on July 7th, delving further into the spending habits and
overall economic structure of the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender
community. New topics will be added to the original survey areas covered in
the history-making annual study. Since the beginning with the 2001 research
and last year's 2002/2003, which nearly 9,000 respondents and the attention
of worldwide media, politicos and businesses alike, the GLCensus Partnership
has accrued a database with thousands more GLBT members registering each
month to participate in this year's study. 

The 2003/2004 G/L Consumer Online Census will be made available to members
of the worldwide GLBT community beginning July 7th through August 18th, 2003
at www.glcensus.org. <http://www.glcensus.org./> The study will include
basic demographics (gender, self- identification, ethnicity, geography,
family/relationship structures, occupation, household income), as well as
spending habits in a number of targeted industries, such as automotive,
financial, health and human services, pet care, travel and entertainment,
just to name a few.

The annual G/L Census survey was intended to become one of the tools used to
educate mainstream advertisers about this unique niche market, which has
been widely ignored in the past. The results were remarkable, according to
Jeffrey Garber, president of OpusComm Group, and founder of the partnership
along with Syracuse University. 

"With the G/L Census, our hope was to get a higher, more respectable number
of respondents, making it the largest independent survey of the GLBT
consumer market to date, enabling it to accurately express the attitudes and
opinions of a larger GLBT population", Garber said. "Launching the 'Stand Up
and Be Counted' campaign, and choosing the Internet as the vehicle for the
study, was obviously a potent combination. Last year we drew a record
response of 8,831 respondents. That is practically unheard of in research of
any kind, much less in a targeted community considered so elusive." Todd
Evans, president of Rivendell and new media sponsor of the GLCensus further
adds, "In today's media, advertisers wishing to target the GLBT community
require solid research to effectively launch national advertising
campaigns." 

The results of the annual G/L Census are published and made available for
purchase. Since then, a large number of the Fortune 100 companies have
purchased the information in an effort to successfully market directly to
this coveted segment. Garber states: "GLBT consumer clout is gaining fast
respect and attention. GLBT consumers are hoping that their consumer loyalty
will be valued by advertisers who will in turn, reciprocate in assisting the
community in efforts to pursue legislative equality - in essence consumerism
is a form of activism." 

The GLCensus Partnership consists S.I. Newhouse School of Public
Communications at Syracuse University and founding partner OpusComm Group,
Inc.

OpusComm Group is an award winning advertising/PR agency with over 18 years
of experience servicing the Fortune 500, specializing in consultation of
sensitivity issues and market planning for all types of advertisers to
target the GLBT community in mainstream media.

Syracuse University is well respected as one of the world's leading academic
and research institutions in the field of communications, partner S.I.
Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University is again
leading the development of the Census. The research team is led by Professor
Amy Falkner and Dr. Beth Barnes, Assistant Dean for Professional Graduate
Studies.

This year GLCensus Partners proudly announces Rivendell, as the lead media
sponsor of the GLCensus Rivendell Media is considered America's leading gay
and lesbian media placement firm. They have been helping agencies reach the
gay press since 1979, serving as the national advertising representative for
over 200 gay and lesbian newspapers, magazines and entertainment guides.
.
For further information or to obtain a 2002 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online
Census media kit, contact Jeffrey Garber, OpusComm Group, Inc. at (315)
637-2018

GLCensus Partners ( www.glcensus.org <http://www.glcensus.org/> ) - The
world leader in GLBT consumer research, GL Census Partners includes: * The
S.I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University ( www.syracuse.edu
<http://www.syracuse.edu/> ) - One of the world's leading academic and
research institutions in the field of communications. * OpusComm Group (
www.opuscommgroup.com <http://www.opuscommgroup.com/> ) - Innovative
Advertising, Marketing, Communication, Public Relations and Research experts
on the Gay/Lesbian market. 
 
No winners in gay bishop row
BBC News
By Alex Kirby
Published: 2003/07/06 16:00:48 GMT
 
Canon Jeffrey John, chosen by the Church of England as a bishop, has decided to refuse the post. 

He is understandably bruised by the bitter row over his acknowledged homosexuality, though he now lives a celibate life.  

For him, the row is over, with the rest of his life to be salvaged. 


For the Church at large, though, the conflict can only intensify. 
It is hard to see how Canon John's refusal of the post of Bishop of Reading can do anything to arrest the Church's plunge into a civil war of vitriolic name-calling and increasing irrelevance. 

It teaches that lay members can be practising lesbians or gays if they must, but clergy cannot. 

Despite that, some bishops have for years ordained homosexual priests knowingly, realising the church's work would simply grind to a halt otherwise. 

Many outstanding parish priests are homosexual, loved by their parishioners for who they are, irrespective of what they get up to in bed. 

Some bishops have ordained gay and lesbian clergy in ignorance, because they took care not to ask leading questions which they clearly considered irrelevant. 

Casualty 

Even the last Archbishop of Canterbury, George (now Lord) Carey, has said he appointed several gay bishops. 

So when the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Richard Harries, said he wanted Jeffrey John as his assistant at Reading, there was no great gulf threatened between the church's traditional way of doing things and the new reality looming in gay bishop Jeffrey. 

The only really new factor was Lord Carey's successor as archbishop, Rowan Williams. 

Personally sympathetic to lesbian and gay Christians and clergy, Dr Williams has promised nevertheless to uphold the Church's teaching and not to try to change its corporate mind to match his own convictions. 


Canon John apart, he looks like being one of the biggest casualties of this dispute, which is erupting barely six months after he took office. 
Jeffrey John's appointment was opposed by many Anglicans, some claiming it was wrong to proceed until the Church had had more time to reflect, others insisting that gay and lesbian Christians could never hold priestly office. 

If Dr Williams, Dr Harries and their supporters believe homosexuality is no bar to ordination, they will have to confront their opponents head-on. 

But Jeffrey John's decision has robbed them of the chance, while it leaves the other camp convinced it has won - that it has made a gay bishop's appointment impossible. 

The Church coped for years with its dilemma by pretending priestly homosexuality did not exist. But that dilemma is now both acute and very public. 

As things stand, the Church of England is one of very few British organisations that can get away with saying lesbian and gay people have chosen to be less than they could be. 

Most of my agnostic and atheist friends (and a lot of my Christian friends, too) are unsure whether to laugh or cry over it . 

Synod meeting 

There are sincere church people who believe homosexuality is wrong, so wrong that it must be an acid test for the clergy.  

What is hard to see is how they and the Williams-Harries-John camp can any longer share one church. So the Church of England may be unable any longer to avoid a split. 

Its general synod starts a meeting on 11 July, unsure even whether it will find time to discuss gay bishops. 

It may all seem like the genteel rattling of the teacups on a vicarage lawn, too parochial to matter much. 

But if the Church splits, the 70-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion can hardly hold together. 

In countries like Malaysia, Pakistan and Nigeria, a religious affairs correspondent's patch may soon prove a busy one.  
Gay priest rejects bishop post
BBC NEWS
Published: 2003/07/06 16:36:55 GMT
 
Gay priest Canon Jeffrey John has said he will not take up the post of Bishop of Reading. 
It follows weeks of bitter argument within the Anglican Church about whether or not he should be allowed to hold the position, because of his sexuality. 

Dr John said he made the decision because of the "damage" his consecration might cause to the "unity of the Church".  

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, praised his "dignity and forbearance" and made clear that homosexuals "are full and welcome members of the Church", despite "unsavoury" comments during the row. 

But Dr Williams said it would not have been acceptable to see the Church split, particularly from congregations in the developing world, and that it was time for members to reflect on what had happened. 

'Great sadness' 

Dr John will now seek the permission of the Crown to withdraw his acceptance of the job, according to a spokesman for the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, who made the appointment. 

A number of the letters I read displayed a shocking level of ignorance and hatred towards homosexual people 
Rowan Williams 
Bishop Harries said he accepted Dr John's decision "with great sadness" but was aware of the "immense pressures" he had been under. 

In reply to Dr John's letter of resignation, he wrote: "I would like you to know that not only did you have my unswerving support, but also that of a great many others in the diocese." 

Dr Williams, who was recently forced to deny claims that homosexual clergy were being promoted to change Church policy on the issue by stealth, said the question of homosexuality in the Church had not gone away. 

"Canon John's withdrawal should not be taken to mean that the church can now stop being concerned about how it discerns the will of God in this area of ethics," he said. 

The Archbishop said he had been contacted by many members of the church and a number of the letters "displayed a shocking level of ignorance and hatred towards homosexual people". 

Break ties 

Dr John, who was due to be consecrated on 9 October, has been in a relationship with a man for 27 years, but says he is now celibate. 


The decision to make him the Bishop of Reading prompted a crisis within the church, with nine senior bishops writing to national newspapers to express their anger. 

The Archbishop of Nigeria, the leader of the world's biggest Anglican community, threatened to break ties with the Church if the appointment went ahead. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury was accused of turning his back on clergy in the developing world after he said he raised no objection to Dr John's appointment. 

'Unswerving support' 

Answering his critics recently, Dr John said: "My own view is that there is a sound argument from scripture and tradition in favour of Christians accepting same-sex relationships, provided they are based on a personal covenant of lifelong faithfulness." 

He had the support of at least eight bishops, who wrote to Dr Williams to say they backed the appointment, but the row had been expected to dominate this week's meeting of the General Synod, the Church's parliament. 

Conservative members of the Church welcomed Dr John's decision. 

Joel Edwards of The Evangelical Alliance said: "Our initial thoughts are relief that the decision has gone this way. It is definitely in the interests of the church." 

But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell warned: "Having scored this victory, anti-gay evangelists are looking to step up their campaign against gay people in the church." 

'Honourable people' 

Dr John's announcement came after the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, said he ordained two bishops he " suspected" were gay in the 1990s. 

His acknowledgement marked his first intervention in the row within the Anglican Church over the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John. 

However, Dr Carey said he had "never knowingly ordained a practising homosexual". 

He said he was against the appointment of Dr John and would stop an ordination if he learned the person was in a homosexual relationship. 
 
New owner takes over Genre magazine
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Peter Marchese
Thursday, July 3, 2003 / 03:33 PM
 
Genre magazine -- a popular gay men's magazine -- has been purchased by Avalon Equity Partners, a New York City-based private equity fund that already controls the nation's largest gay newspaper group. 

Avalon, which made the announcement on Wednesday, owns Window Media, the publisher responsible for several gay and lesbian newspapers -- the Washington Blade, the New York Blade News, the Houston Voice, Atlanta's Southern Voice -- and Eclipse magazine, distributed in southern U.S. cities. Avalon's portfolio also includes a number of cable and communications providers around the country. 

By acquiring Genre, Avalon has branched into yet another media arena. Genre touts itself as the first glossy, mainstream gay publication. 

With the change of ownership, Genre also announced a change in leadership. Scott Brunelle, who was most recently publisher and advertising director at Grace Woman Magazine, has been appointed president and publisher of Genre. Brunelle will try to generate new customers, revenue and publicity -- all while staying true to Genre's gay readers. 

"I want to build on the magazine's 12-year history and retain the loyalty of readers that have grown up with Genre as part of their lives," Brunelle said. "We also want to expand the editorial focus to fully encompass -- and be even more relevant to -- the lifestyle aspirations of our very select and powerful reader demographic." 

Genre's former publisher, Richard Settles, will remain as a part-time consultant for the magazine over the next three years and is confident the transition will go smoothly. 

"They have very exciting plans for the magazine," said Settles. "And I'm thrilled with the outcome."
New global AIDS czar gets mixed reaction
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Christopher Lisotta
Thursday, July 3, 2003 / 03:36 PM
 
Randall Tobias, the former pharmaceutical executive tapped by the Bush administration to run a federal program to combat AIDS in African and Caribbean countries, is an unknown to most AIDS service providers but is getting a mostly cautious welcome. 

Tobias, the former chairman and CEO of the Indiana-based drug company Eli Lilly and Co., has no experience working in Africa or with AIDS charities, but Bush administration officials are touting his close relationship with the president and his business skills as a sign the administration is taking the program seriously. 

Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services, was quick to praise Tobias. 

"President Bush has taken yet another important step in increasing the United States' role in the global fight against HIV/ AIDS by announcing his intention to create a new position with ambassadorial rank to coordinate U.S. assistance and help bring about increased contributions to the world effort from others as well," Thompson said in a statement. "Randall Tobias will bring a wealth of valuable experience to this mission, and his appointment signals once again the president's high commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS worldwide." 

Most AIDS service organizations welcomed the Tobias nomination, and the speed with which the administration is getting the global funding initiative up and running. 

"Gay Men's Health Crisis is pleased that the White House is moving forward on these appointments," said Ana Oliveira, executive director of the New York City-based GMHC. "We urge both Mr. Tobias and Dr. (Joseph) O'Neill (director of the Office of National AIDS Policy) to work quickly to solidify their plans for the Global AIDS Fund, given the urgency of the AIDS pandemic." 

Fred Dillon, public policy director for the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and Pangeaea Global AIDS Foundation, took a similarly short but optimistic approach to discussing the Tobias nomination. "We hope that he will use his stellar management skills and knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry to guarantee that HIV treatments reach the people who need them most," he said in a statement relayed by his office to the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. 

Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Global AIDS Alliance, is much more skeptical of Tobias and is worried about a conflict of interest that may come from running the global AIDS program. 

"I don't have a personal opinion of him," Zeitz told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network, but he expressed concern over the appointment. "We're advocating for open competition between branded and generically manufactured drugs, so poor countries can buy drugs at fair prices. He may be trying to establish some drug purchasing arrangement that benefits the American drug industry." 

Not all the concern for Tobias' nomination came from the left. The Family Research Council, which has pushed for more abstinence-only education over the use of condoms, expressed concern that Tobias would not follow their model of AIDS prevention. 

"We are concerned that Mr. Tobias does not have a proven track record of supporting the effective strategies to combat AIDS," said Connie Mackey, FRC's vice president for government affairs. "The White House must ensure that Mr. Tobias follows the A-B-C (Abstain, Be faithful, or use a Condom) model to combating AIDS." 

The Senate still must confirm the nomination of Tobias. 
FDA approves once-daily AIDS drug
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Mark Goebel
Thursday, July 3, 2003 / 03:38 PM
 
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the new once-a-day AIDS drug Emtriva, which blocks the action of an enzyme that HIV needs to reproduce. 

By interfering with this process, which is central to the replication of HIV, Emtriva combined with other antiretroviral drugs can help to lower the amount of HIV in a patient's body and increase the number of immune system cells or "T" cells. Both developments are associated with a decrease in the likelihood of AIDS-related illnesses. 

Developed by Foster City, Calif.-based Gilead Sciences, Emtriva is similar to GlaxoSmithKline's widely used Epivir, or 3TC. Emtriva is part of a class of drugs known as reverse transcriptase inhibitors. 

"Emtriva's once-daily dosing, side effect profile and long half-life make it an important addition to a new generation of easier-to-use HIV therapies," said Dr. Michael Saag, professor of medicine and director of the HIV Clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. "Its activity against the virus, combined with easy dosing, offers patients an effective treatment option that can help reduce the heavy pill burden often associated with combination therapy." 

Charles Farthing, chief of medicine of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, agreed that the long-acting nature of Emtriva was a big plus. He added, however, that patients who have developed a resistance to Epivir probably would be resistant to Emtriva. "The two drugs are not very different," he said. 

Gilead said that the wholesale price of Emtriva would be approximately $250 monthly, or $3,000 yearly, comparable to Glaxo's Epivir, and would be available and shipped next week. 

Gilead's other AIDS drug, Viread, was recently made available at cost to developing countries, reducing its price in Africa, for example, to $468 per year from the $4,320 that the company charges in the United States, the Los Angeles Times reported. But Milligan has indicated that the company was not prepared to offer Emtriva at cost. "It is very expensive to produce," he said. 

Milligan said that Gilead is developing a process that should reduce manufacturing expenses significantly, making it possible to offer Emtriva at reduced cost to poor countries. 

Gilead said the company's goal is to overtake Glaxo's Combivir, the bestselling AIDS medication with sales of $530 million in 2002. (Combivir combines Epivir and AZT into one pill that is taken twice daily.) 

"Emtriva provides the first convenient alternative to Combivir," said John Milligan, Gilead's chief financial officer.  

Milligan added that a single pill containing Emtriva and Viread could reach the market by 2005, reducing the times a patient needs to take a pill to once a day. 

Last month the FDA approved Reyetaz, or atazanavir, the first once-daily protease inhibitor for treating HIV/AIDS. 
 
Gays and the GOP
How a Republican group is trying to make sexual orientation a ¡¥non-issue¡¦ for the party
Source: NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Arlene Getz
July 3, 2003
 
Gays have always been more likely to vote Democrat. But as the 2004 White House race shifts into gear¡Xand the issue of same-sex marriage becomes a national talking point¡Xa few Republicans are stepping up their efforts to attract homosexuals into the big tent. 

YET WILL GAY voters ever really feel welcome in a GOP that is backed by a legion of conservative Christians? One of the party organizations trying to make that happen is the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC)¡Xa group of gay and straight party members established more than two years ago in a bid to make sexual orientation a ¡§non-issue¡¨ among their supporters.

The RUC was one of several groups that filed an amicus (¡§friend of the court¡¨) brief arguing that the Texas sodomy law, struck down by the Supreme Court last week, was unconstitutional. Describing itself as less a grass-roots movement than one for ¡§grass tops¡¨¡XRepublicans with long-established and often powerful roles in the GOP¡Xthe RUC¡¦s big-name members include former president Gerald Ford and former Wyoming senator Alan K. Simpson.

Simpson, the group¡¦s honorary chairman, spoke to NEWSWEEK¡¦s Arlene Getz this week about gay Republicans, the religious right and the 2004 election. Excerpts: 

NEWSWEEK: Why did you join the Republican Unity Coalition?
Allan K. Simpson: I don¡¦t think there¡¦s anyone in America [who] doesn¡¦t have someone close to them who¡¦s part of the gay or lesbian population. I met the head of the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay GOP group] almost 10 years ago when I was working on immigration [legislation.] They had the same conflicts about abortion, about taxes¡Xthere really wasn¡¦t much discussion about the gay-lesbian issue. At the end of it I said I had no idea of the kind of anguish that they must go through, none. I said that if I can help turn that tide then I¡¦d be glad to do so ¡K Then there¡¦s my deep regard and affection for Dick and Lynne Cheney and [their gay daughter] Mary, whom I watched grow up. 

One of the RUC¡¦s goals is to sideline the influence of religious conservatives in the GOP. 
RUC honorary chairman Alan K. Simpson
We don¡¦t have any concept of sidelining anyone. That¡¦s not our intent at all.

What about sidelining their agenda?
I¡¦m not into anything but the awareness of tolerance and the importance of an honest appraisal of acceptance. It matters not to me what they do. I don¡¦t do those things to sideline anybody. We¡¦re not asking for anything special [for gays]?Xjust openness, honesty, tolerance. Even the word acceptance may not be good, because you don¡¦t have to accept anybody in life. 

This doesn¡¦t sound like a traditional Republican speaking. 
That¡¦s a stereotype. What¡¦s always curious to me is how liberal-progressive people are always babbling about how they never stereotype. Well, that¡¦s B.S. I don¡¦t know what the hell I am¡Xconservative, liberal? You figure it out. 

How much is the religious right shaping the GOP¡¦s agenda? 
I would see people at rallies as I campaigned for [the first President] Bush and [Bob] Dole and the second Bush and I would say: ¡§You apparently are part of the Christian right. What do you believe that¡¦s so frightening to the rest of us?¡¨ They said: ¡§We believe that the educational system is a failure. We think the entertainment industry is debasing America. We feel that the soaps in the afternoons consist of the horniest people that have ever [roamed] the earth scratching at every orifice. And we believe in God.¡¨ What¡¦s wrong with those people? What is the evil of the ¡§Christian right?¡¨ They believe in God and they believe in family values. What is so horrific about that? 

I¡¦m not judging their values, just asking the extent to which they are influencing the party?
It is always brought up in a negative way. That¡¦s the way it is.

What about their disapproval of gays?
I¡¦m not comfortable with some of their views, especially with regard to homosexuality. My view doesn¡¦t match theirs on abortion. But I think the Republicans are getting smart enough now to realize [the value of] what Reagan said¡Xgive me a guy who¡¦s with me 70 percent of the time instead of some jerk who¡¦s against me 100 percent of the time. The 100 percenters in our party are less, thank heavens, because the hundred percenters are the guys you want to stay away from. They¡¦re people who seethe. Those are the people who didn¡¦t vote [for George Bush in 1992] and gave us Bill Clinton. And if there¡¦s ever a group of people who think of the anti-Christ as Bill Clinton, then it¡¦s the archconservative right-wing people you and I describe.

Are you saying that because they¡¦ll back George W. Bush in 2004 whatever happens, he can start reaching out to moderates like those represented by the RUC.
I¡¦m not saying that at all. I¡¦m just saying that I think there¡¦s less chance this time of a flight of those people from the presidential race on the basis of their ¡§agenda.¡¨ They know that George W. Bush is listening to them. 

Is the GOP¡¦s big tent getting smaller?
I don¡¦t think so. If you want to go and look at the big tent shrinking, go and look at the Democrats. The fabric is unraveling at the edge of their tent because if they nominate Howard Dean, they can kiss half the Congress goodbye.  

Can a group like the RUC fit into a Republican Party dominated by Karl Rove?
They are fitting within it, because in it are people Karl Rove is going to count on to help George W. Bush get re-elected?Xlike Jerry Ford and Mary Cheney and [former congressman] Michael Huffington. 

So there are no tensions between those in the RUC and those on the right?
I do not see that, because when they surface, they¡¦re not getting the acceptance that they have before. Ten years ago, after a decision like this [the Texas sodomy case] in the court, airwaves would have been filled with the horror of the destruction of the family. Now, sure it¡¦s out there. But not in any way like it would have been 10 years ago. 

Yet less than three months ago, Republican Sen. Rick Santorum caused an uproar by likening homosexual activity to bigamy and incest. 
I thought [those comments] were sad. I know Rick and I respect him, but I think that view was a little bit bizarre.

But doesn¡¦t that indicate to you how far the nation¡Xand the Republican Party¡Xstill has to go toward tolerance for gays? 
I don¡¦t know. I¡¦ve been on earth 71 years, and we¡¦ve come a long way. It takes six to eight years to pass a major piece of legislation. We have a country now that¡¦s set on a timetable of immediate gratification. Forget it. All this stuff takes time. But the difference between 10 years ago and today on the gay-lesbian issue in this country is an eon apart. And if we ¡¦ve moved this far in just 10 years, in the next 10 years it will be just as dramatic. 

What about Senate leader Bill Frist's support for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage?
I don¡¦t think that¡¦s appropriate. I think that minimizes the Constitution.

And your response to Bush¡¦s comments this week that such a constitutional ban may not be necessary yet¡Xbut that he does support the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman? 
I think that¡¦s a pretty valid point, I think that most people feel that way. That is the one step that will be difficult?Xthe legalization of same-sex marriage. 

Do you see this same-sex marriage becoming a major issue in the 2004 race?
Only if the media continues to enjoy kicking it around [and] stirring it up. That¡¦s really what¡¦s happening here. Why minimize [the progress that has been made] by zeroing in on one thing? 

Do you expect to see any legislation arise from the court decision?
I don¡¦t know, but I¡¦ll tell you an interesting thing personally. I haven¡¦t had a single letter, or e-mail, or comment or phone call about my position since I became involved in this movement.

Republican officials say that more than a million gays voted for President Bush. How many gay votes do you expect the GOP to win in the 2004 presidential race?
It'll be more than that, that¡¦s all I know. Because with the Log Cabin Republicans, with the Republican Unity Coalition, [ that has contributed to] the new awareness.

After Bush was elected, some media reports noted that while he had shown some leadership on gay issue, his aides didn¡¦t advertise it for fear of provoking the conservative wing. Is that likely to change? 
He has members of his administration who are openly gay. I haven¡¦t seen Karl Rove trying to get rid of them or Jerry Falwell writing nasty letters. If you¡¦re doing it right, you don¡¦t give a damn whether they¡¦re gay or lesbian; you¡¦re looking for quality, you¡¦re looking for merit. He appoints them. It¡¦s always the media that comes back [and reports that they¡¦re gay.] 

Gay Democrats raised upward of $18 million dollars during the last election cycle. The RUC has said it is dedicated to building a political action committee of similar maturity that would raise $1 million for the RUC PAC by September 2002. How successful has that been?
I think we¡¦re doing quite well. But I have no idea of how much has been raised. 

Where do you want to see the GOP go from here?
As I see this election coming, it seems that for the first time I see people realizing that these tests of [ideological] purity do nothing at all to help us win [elections]. All they do is energize zealots, [the] 100 percenters. I tell them: ¡§ Why don¡¦t you forget this one issue [about gays]¡¨ and remember that George W. is going to be with you 60, 70, 80 percent of the time. And that whoever is on the other side is not going to be. So let¡¦s not cut each other up.
Wal-Mart Adds 'Sexual Orientation' to Non-Discrimination Policy
Culture and Family
By Martha Kleder
7/2/2003
 
Retail giant Wal-Mart has announced that "sexual orientation" has been added to its non-discrimination policy. The move comes after the Seattle-based homosexual pressure group Pride Foundation became investors in the company in August 2001 and joined with other liberal investment groups in pushing for the change. 

This move leaves ExxonMobil as the only remaining company of the 10 largest members of the Fortune 500 without such a policy. Of all the Fortune 500 companies, 197 provide medical coverage for domestic partners and 318 have extended non- discrimination policies to homosexuals. 

Wal-Mart¡¦s new policy was released in a letter today to its 3,500 stores. It states, ¡§We affirm our commitment and pledge our support to equal opportunity employment for all qualified persons, regardless of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or status as a veteran or sexual orientation.¡¨ 

The policy also calls for managers to ¡§recruit, train and promote all job positions¡¨ based on those principles. Personnel actions must also comply with the policy, and the company has revised its harassment and inappropriate conduct policies in light of the new policy. 

When first contacted by the liberal pressure groups, Wal-Mart agreed to conduct management training without changing its policy on homosexuals. 

While Wal-Mart has changed its non-discrimination policy in response to continued pressure, a spokesman has told The New York Times that it has no plans to offer domestic partner health benefits. 

The activists behind this effort say they will continue to pressure the retailer until they do.
 
Hundreds At Memorial To Murdered Gay Couple
365Gay.com Newscenter (SF Bureau)
by Mark Worrall
July 2, 2003
 
(Happy Valley, California) More than 300 people gathered Tuesday night 
to mark the fourth anniversary of the brutal slayings of Gary Matson and 
Winfield Mowder.

The elderly gay couple were shot to death by two neo Nazis as they slept 
in their Happy Valley home.

The annual memorial, called a Celebration of Life and Diversity was 
established by the Matson-Mowder Pride Alliance to pay tribute not only 
to the couple but to all gays and lesbians who have been brutalized.

"It's to help people learn that people can be different than you and 
it's OK," said Dave Boyd of Redding. "It's to break through the 
ignorance and fear."

Although the annual event is small, it has helped increase tolerance, 
said Cecina Hines of Redding.

"I think being gay and lesbian in this community is somewhat easier 
now," Hines said. "It's less homophobic."

Matson and Mowder's killers were later caught, after torching two 
northern California synagogues.

Benjamin Matthew Williams and his brother James Tyler Williams were 
charged with murder and arson.

Benjamin Williams confessed to the killings in a letter dated two days 
before his Nov. 17, 2002, suicide in Shasta County Jail. Tyler Williams 
pleaded guilty to the killings and is currently serving 29 years to life 
at High Desert State Prison in Susanville.
 
Dragging us down
From The Advocate
By Sue Rochman
July 8, 2003

New studies suggest that you¡¦re not alone in your blues¡Xin fact, gay people actually may be more prone to depression than heterosexuals
 
We¡¦re out. We¡¦re proud. We¡¦re on Prozac?

It¡¦s been nearly 30 years since the American Psychiatric Association ceased listing homosexuality as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders¡Xsaying that gay people are not mentally ill and are not more likely to have mental health problems.

Now part of that long-held position is being called into question. As a panel of researchers reported at the APA¡¦s annual meeting in San Francisco in May, the latest studies suggest that lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults appear to be more likely than heterosexual adults to experience depression and anxiety.

These studies, which are based on analyses of large national surveys, contradict years of previous research, which most often focused on subjects culled from gay pride events and through advertisements in the gay press.

The discrepancy stems, in part, from the different methodologies¡Xboth of which have their pluses and minuses, researchers say. The latest studies, analyzing the national health surveys, best represent the whole population. Still, the percentage of respondents who identify as gay or lesbian is relatively small. In one study, for example, only 74 of the 2,917 adults questioned identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

In contrast, the earlier studies, which focused specifically on gay people, naturally have larger percentages of gay- identified participants. But because the subjects were recruited from gay pride events and through the gay media, they are less likely to represent the gay and lesbian population as a whole.

To be sure, not all gay people who are depressed say it¡¦s linked to their sexual orientation. In some instances depression can be biological. In other instances it can be situational¡Xdue to a breakup, an HIV diagnosis, or the unexpected pink slip. But researchers say it is also possible that these factors only compound the stress that gay people experience as members of a minority group.

¡§Minority stress is socially based and stems from an environment characterized by prejudice,¡¨ says Ilan Meyer, an assistant professor of clinical sociomedical sciences at Columbia University. ¡§It is experienced on top of the other stressors people have in their lives, and it can affect a person¡¦s mental health¡¨¡Xincluding their risk for depression.

The theory of minority stress could explain why recent studies have found higher rates of depression in bisexual men and women, who often feel isolated from both gay and straight populations. In addition, it underscores how being part of a supportive community can be critical for your mental health.

¡§Being part of an LGBT community may be protective against depression,¡¨ says Esther Rothblum, a University of Vermont psychology professor. This might be one reason the studies conducted on people at pride parades¡Xtraditionally supportive events¡Xdid not find higher depression rates, she says.

Of course, even people who are completely out can experience homophobia. And, according to Queer Blues: The Lesbian & Gay Guide to Overcoming Depression, up to 1.7 million gay men and lesbians suffer from depression. ¡§I was running a support group for gay men with depression,¡¨ says Braden Berkey, director of behavioral health services at Chicago¡¦s Howard Brown Health Center. ¡§These guys lived in Boystown and worked in professions that were accepting of who they were. So in terms of minority stress, you wouldn¡¦t expect it to be there.¡¨ But as the group continued to meet, he says, the conversations turned to the anger the participants had because of the restraints they felt as a result of their sexual orientation.

Although antidepressants do help many people suffering from depression, some psychotherapists are concerned that these new studies will cause some doctors to simply encourage their gay patients to ¡§take a pill¡¨ rather than push for public policies targeted at reducing discrimination and minority stress.

¡§I think it is important for lesbians and gay men not to neglect the cultural context for how they feel,¡¨ says Marny Hall, a San Francisco¡Vbased psychotherapist and coauthor of the book Queer Blues. ¡§There is an overemphasis on biology and on antidepressants that makes the problem become serotonin rather than homophobia.¡¨

The need to talk about homophobia will undoubtedly become even more important if researchers continue to find that gay people are at higher risk for depression. ¡§GLBT psychologists have worked so hard to destigmatize and depathologize our orientations and gender expressions that it is hard to now turn it around and say, ¡¥Yes, in and of itself, being lesbian or gay is not a pathological state¡Xbut the incidence of depression is higher in our populations,¡¦¡¨ Berkey says. ¡§But what we need to emphasize is that there is nothing inherent about being GLBT that makes you more likely to be mentally ill. It is something about being GLBT in our society.¡¨

Rochman is editor at large for HIV Plus.

Feedbacks & Suggestions