The 17th Original GLBT Expo
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center
38th & 11th Aves | New York City
Click Here or Call:
212-216-2000 for directions
Your Show, Your Way!
When:
Saturday March 20, 2010
11:00am to 7:00pm
Sunday March 21, 2010
12:00pm to 6:00pm
11:00am to 7:00pm
Sunday March 21, 2010
12:00pm to 6:00pm
Where:
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center
38th & 11th Aves
New York City, NY. 10014
212-216-2000
38th & 11th Aves
New York City, NY. 10014
212-216-2000
Host Hotel:
Four Points Sheraton | SoHo
66 Charlton Street
New York City, NY. 10014
Phone: 888-627-7083
$165.00 per night +Taxes
Booking Code: RDPGroup, RDP or RDP09
http://www.starwoodhotels.com
66 Charlton Street
New York City, NY. 10014
Phone: 888-627-7083
$165.00 per night +Taxes
Booking Code: RDPGroup, RDP or RDP09
http://www.starwoodhotels.com
Video Lounge Line-up
The 17th Original GLBT Expo
The 17th Original GLBT ExpoSaturday March 20, 2010
Sunday March 21, 2010
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center
38th & 11th Aves
New York City, NY. 10014
for more information call 800-243-9774
#1 in Attendance #1 in Exhibitors
#1 Advertising & Promotion #1 Expo
2010 is our 17th Anniversary. This is a huge milestone for the GLBT Community, the loyal sponsors/exhibitors/attendees that support the EXPO and your dedicated staff at The RDP Group.
For the past 17 years, the EXPO has helped to present the finest products & services available to the GLBT consumer. Starting in 1993, the EXPO has generated over $80,000,000 of dollars spent within the Greater Tri-State area. This includes the GLBT friendly companies from every industry, both large and small, Fortune 1000 and Gay-owned companies. They have all discovered the GLBT Community is affluent, brand-loyal, well educated and business minded. It is the truest of definition of "THE PERFECT NICHE MARKET".
Decade of Achievement Award (2010)
GLBT Relief for Haiti
365gay Newswire
“Logo Drama Club” – Episode 24: “Abraham Lincoln’s Big Gay Dance Party”
Contributer: 365gay Newscenter Staff
Contributer: 365gay Newscenter Staff
The ‘ban gay adoption’ movement: sacrificing children
When child protective services took two young children from their home and brought them to Frank Martin Gill and his partner in December 2004, protective services told the men - experienced foster parents - that the boys deserved a good holiday. The men were planning to move soon but agreed to take them temporarily. [1] It was clear the boys, ages four years and four months, needed care. The elder boy was wearing a dirty, adult-sized t-shirt and sneakers that were four sizes too small. He did not speak, and his only concern was caring for his infant brother. Both boys had scalp ringworm and the younger had an ear infection, but the medicines brought from their home had been unused. When the older boy began to speak after about a month, the men learned he had never seen a book, could not count, and did not even know letters from numbers. The brothers stayed and the men did not move. The boys developed friendships at school and in the neighborhood. They bonded with the biological son of Gill’s partner and with the couple’s parents and siblings. They began referring to Gill and his partner (who is not identified in court documents) as “Papi” and “Daddy.” In 2007, after the rights of the biological parents were terminated, Gill petitioned to adopt. The men, however, live in the state of Florida - the one state that bans any gay men or lesbians from adopting. And that has created a dilemma for the courts: either they honor the law or honor their duty to rule in the best interests of the children. Despite a positive home study, the Florida Department of Children and Families denied Gill’s adoption application. With the help of the ACLU of Florida, Gill sued the state. (The men felt they would stand no chance if they sued for a joint adoption.) During the trial, the court heard expert testimony from a psychologist who had assessed the boys and determined they would be “emotionally devastated” if taken from their current home. In November 2008, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that the adoption ban violated Gill and the children’s right to equal protection under the state Constitution. The government, she said, failed to demonstrate a rational reason for imposing the ban, and the law obstructed the right of children to a permanent, stable home as provided by federal and state law. The state Department of Children and Families (DCF) appealed the ruling to the state’s Third District Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in August 2009. The decision has now been pending for a year. A few other states have some restrictions on gay people adopting children, but Florida is the only state whose law specifically bans adoptions by all gay men or lesbians. Mississippi bans same-sex couples from doing so, and Arkansas, Michigan, and Utah ban unmarried couples (by definition, all same-sex couples in the state). So far, despite the ban, Florida courts have ruled three times to allow an adoption by a gay or lesbian parent. The first was in August 2008, when a Monroe Circuit judge allowed Wayne LaRue Smith to adopt the boy he and his partner had been fostering since 2001. Because Smith had already been named the boy’s legal guardian, neither DCF nor the attorney general appealed. The second adoption was granted to Gill through Lederman’s ruling in November 2008. The third was in January 2010, when a Miami-Dade circuit judge allowed Vanessa Alenier to adopt the one-year-old she and her partner have been fostering. The judge said the adoption ban was “unconstitutional on its face.” The state has appealed that decision, too. Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, an LGBT advocacy group, observed in an interview, “Judges are beginning to push back and say ‘There’s a contradiction in this law that does not allow us to carry out our prime mission, and that is that the children have to come first. What their needs are has to be the primary guidance in what we do.’” Florida legislators have also recently attempted to overturn the ban in the legislature. Three bills were introduced in March, but two were withdrawn before a vote and one died in committee. And Governor Charlie Crist, who now running for U.S. Senate, told TIME magazine in June he believes in “a live and let live attitude as it regards adoption [by gay men and lesbians].” He said “the best decision maker would be a judge,” but that the current law must change first. “I’m sure that a future legislature and maybe the next governor might addressthat issue,” he added. Beyond Florida, some LGBT experts and advocates think that adoption could be the next major target --after marriage equality-- for opponents of LGBT civil rights. In the federal trial this year challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a witness for the plaintiffs, Dr. Gary Segura predicted that, as fewer states are able to use the initiative process to contest same-sex marriage, “the new front line would be gay and lesbian adoption.” “I would not be surprised to see anti-adoption initiatives appearing in the near future,” said Segura, professor of political science at Stanford University. Equality Florida’s Smith agreed, saying, “The entire country has a stake in ending [the Florida] adoption ban so that the far-right doesn’t begin trying to export it and expand it elsewhere through the same mechanisms that they pushed the marriage ban. . . . The far-right nationally is geared up to defend and expand this ban and we’ve got to be geared up nationally to defeat it.” There are signs of this already. The Arizona House approved a bill at the end of February that would give preference to married couples when placing children with adoptive parents. It is now in the State Senate. And voters in Arkansas approved that state’s ban on allowing adoptions by unmarried couples in November 2008. In April, a state circuit judge struck down the ban for that circuit, but the state is expected to appeal. Anti-LGBT groups have long tried to tie the right to parent with the right to marry. In the Proposition 8 case, for example, attorneys defending the marriage ban tried to persuade the court that an opposite-sex couple provides the best family structure for raising children, and that marriage should therefore be limited to opposite-sex couples. The defense’s star witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, however, testified, “I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.” Attorneys on the plaintiffs’ side brought in two experts who had also testified in the Florida Gill case. One was Dr. Michael Lamb, professor of developmental psychology at Cambridge University, who spoke in both cases about the extensive research showing that children do as well with gay or lesbian parents as with straight ones. The other was Dr. Letitia Peplau, professor of psychology and sociology at UCLA, who testified to the stability of same-sex relationships. Anti-LGBT groups may have better luck at the ballot box than in the court room, as the field of experts to testify on their behalf about same-sex couples and children seems to be shrinking. In the Gill case, the DCF brought in two experts for the trial court hearing who argued that gay men and lesbians were not suitable to become parents. Judge Lederman said of one, clinical psychologist Dr. George Rekers, “the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.” (Rekers was later reported to be traveling with a gay male escort who claimed Rekers himself was gay. Rekers responded that he spends time with sinners in order to help them.) The other DCF expert, Dr. Walter Schumm, associate professor of family studies at Kansas State University, seemed to argue for Gill when he said, during the Florida trial, that “gay parents can be good foster parents,” and “the decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis.” Only one federal bill seeks to address the issue. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) in March, would prohibit federal funds to states that discriminate in adoption based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Gill himself testified at a U.S. House panel discussion when the bill was introduced. The bill is now in the House Ways and Means Committee and has 29 co-sponsors, but there are no scheduled hearings and no Senate counterpart, making it unlikely it will pass this session. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-brief-lesbian-parents-top.jpg
Contributer: Dana Rudolph
When child protective services took two young children from their home and brought them to Frank Martin Gill and his partner in December 2004, protective services told the men - experienced foster parents - that the boys deserved a good holiday. The men were planning to move soon but agreed to take them temporarily. [1] It was clear the boys, ages four years and four months, needed care. The elder boy was wearing a dirty, adult-sized t-shirt and sneakers that were four sizes too small. He did not speak, and his only concern was caring for his infant brother. Both boys had scalp ringworm and the younger had an ear infection, but the medicines brought from their home had been unused. When the older boy began to speak after about a month, the men learned he had never seen a book, could not count, and did not even know letters from numbers. The brothers stayed and the men did not move. The boys developed friendships at school and in the neighborhood. They bonded with the biological son of Gill’s partner and with the couple’s parents and siblings. They began referring to Gill and his partner (who is not identified in court documents) as “Papi” and “Daddy.” In 2007, after the rights of the biological parents were terminated, Gill petitioned to adopt. The men, however, live in the state of Florida - the one state that bans any gay men or lesbians from adopting. And that has created a dilemma for the courts: either they honor the law or honor their duty to rule in the best interests of the children. Despite a positive home study, the Florida Department of Children and Families denied Gill’s adoption application. With the help of the ACLU of Florida, Gill sued the state. (The men felt they would stand no chance if they sued for a joint adoption.) During the trial, the court heard expert testimony from a psychologist who had assessed the boys and determined they would be “emotionally devastated” if taken from their current home. In November 2008, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that the adoption ban violated Gill and the children’s right to equal protection under the state Constitution. The government, she said, failed to demonstrate a rational reason for imposing the ban, and the law obstructed the right of children to a permanent, stable home as provided by federal and state law. The state Department of Children and Families (DCF) appealed the ruling to the state’s Third District Court of Appeals, which heard arguments in August 2009. The decision has now been pending for a year. A few other states have some restrictions on gay people adopting children, but Florida is the only state whose law specifically bans adoptions by all gay men or lesbians. Mississippi bans same-sex couples from doing so, and Arkansas, Michigan, and Utah ban unmarried couples (by definition, all same-sex couples in the state). So far, despite the ban, Florida courts have ruled three times to allow an adoption by a gay or lesbian parent. The first was in August 2008, when a Monroe Circuit judge allowed Wayne LaRue Smith to adopt the boy he and his partner had been fostering since 2001. Because Smith had already been named the boy’s legal guardian, neither DCF nor the attorney general appealed. The second adoption was granted to Gill through Lederman’s ruling in November 2008. The third was in January 2010, when a Miami-Dade circuit judge allowed Vanessa Alenier to adopt the one-year-old she and her partner have been fostering. The judge said the adoption ban was “unconstitutional on its face.” The state has appealed that decision, too. Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, an LGBT advocacy group, observed in an interview, “Judges are beginning to push back and say ‘There’s a contradiction in this law that does not allow us to carry out our prime mission, and that is that the children have to come first. What their needs are has to be the primary guidance in what we do.’” Florida legislators have also recently attempted to overturn the ban in the legislature. Three bills were introduced in March, but two were withdrawn before a vote and one died in committee. And Governor Charlie Crist, who now running for U.S. Senate, told TIME magazine in June he believes in “a live and let live attitude as it regards adoption [by gay men and lesbians].” He said “the best decision maker would be a judge,” but that the current law must change first. “I’m sure that a future legislature and maybe the next governor might addressthat issue,” he added. Beyond Florida, some LGBT experts and advocates think that adoption could be the next major target --after marriage equality-- for opponents of LGBT civil rights. In the federal trial this year challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a witness for the plaintiffs, Dr. Gary Segura predicted that, as fewer states are able to use the initiative process to contest same-sex marriage, “the new front line would be gay and lesbian adoption.” “I would not be surprised to see anti-adoption initiatives appearing in the near future,” said Segura, professor of political science at Stanford University. Equality Florida’s Smith agreed, saying, “The entire country has a stake in ending [the Florida] adoption ban so that the far-right doesn’t begin trying to export it and expand it elsewhere through the same mechanisms that they pushed the marriage ban. . . . The far-right nationally is geared up to defend and expand this ban and we’ve got to be geared up nationally to defeat it.” There are signs of this already. The Arizona House approved a bill at the end of February that would give preference to married couples when placing children with adoptive parents. It is now in the State Senate. And voters in Arkansas approved that state’s ban on allowing adoptions by unmarried couples in November 2008. In April, a state circuit judge struck down the ban for that circuit, but the state is expected to appeal. Anti-LGBT groups have long tried to tie the right to parent with the right to marry. In the Proposition 8 case, for example, attorneys defending the marriage ban tried to persuade the court that an opposite-sex couple provides the best family structure for raising children, and that marriage should therefore be limited to opposite-sex couples. The defense’s star witness, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, however, testified, “I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children.” Attorneys on the plaintiffs’ side brought in two experts who had also testified in the Florida Gill case. One was Dr. Michael Lamb, professor of developmental psychology at Cambridge University, who spoke in both cases about the extensive research showing that children do as well with gay or lesbian parents as with straight ones. The other was Dr. Letitia Peplau, professor of psychology and sociology at UCLA, who testified to the stability of same-sex relationships. Anti-LGBT groups may have better luck at the ballot box than in the court room, as the field of experts to testify on their behalf about same-sex couples and children seems to be shrinking. In the Gill case, the DCF brought in two experts for the trial court hearing who argued that gay men and lesbians were not suitable to become parents. Judge Lederman said of one, clinical psychologist Dr. George Rekers, “the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.” (Rekers was later reported to be traveling with a gay male escort who claimed Rekers himself was gay. Rekers responded that he spends time with sinners in order to help them.) The other DCF expert, Dr. Walter Schumm, associate professor of family studies at Kansas State University, seemed to argue for Gill when he said, during the Florida trial, that “gay parents can be good foster parents,” and “the decision to permit homosexuals to adopt is best made by the judiciary on a case by case basis.” Only one federal bill seeks to address the issue. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) in March, would prohibit federal funds to states that discriminate in adoption based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Gill himself testified at a U.S. House panel discussion when the bill was introduced. The bill is now in the House Ways and Means Committee and has 29 co-sponsors, but there are no scheduled hearings and no Senate counterpart, making it unlikely it will pass this session. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-brief-lesbian-parents-top.jpg
Contributer: Dana Rudolph
Culhane: Religion, equality and gay marriage – redux
Last week’s column [1] generated an unprecedented deluge of comments – thoughtful, angry, supportive, analytical – but that’s not completely surprising. As I learned when I broached this topic last year [2], any talk about the friction between religion and LGBT equality (and especially marriage equality) brings down the house. Today’s entry will probably destroy the foundation. Recall that the last column ended by asking how to get out of the mess of accommodating religion and an anti-discrimination imperative. Let’s look at a few ideas here. [3] The first is the libertarian position that’s gotten Rand Paul in so much trouble, and that crops up every time anti-discrimination laws are discussed: When it comes to private actors, there should be no such laws. A business owner’s associational freedom trumps the customer’s right to be served. Usually that’s followed by the hope that most business owners aren’t economically dumb enough to act on their prejudices. I used to have more respect for this position than I do today. The experience of social and political history makes it clear that people can and do discriminate all the time, and that we’ve made a collective judgment that we’re not going to tolerate it. Politically – and for me, morally – that ship has long sailed. A few other creative ideas are out there. One especially clever commenter last week suggested that we allow an accommodation for those who would have to be “bodily” involved in the wedding – so photographers wouldn’t be forced to shoot a same-sex wedding party; florists wouldn’t have to be scurrying around at the reception, but would have to sell flowers from their store, and so on. I don’t like this for the same reason I don’t like the so-called “hardship exception” for couples who don’t have choices (there’s only one wedding photographer in town, for example). Both seem like recipes for endless litigation: “We had a hardship.” “No, you didn’t.” Stop it, please. Moreover, no one’s been able to explain why any of these suggested accommodations, once allowed, should be limited to events or businesses somehow “associated” with the wedding. If we’re going to allow religious exemptions based on the immorality of same-sex unions, it’s hard to see any principled reason for rejecting these same reasons in other contexts: Why should I have to rent a home to a lesbian couple, provide health benefits to a gay man’s spouse, or, for that matter, hire a gay man in the first place? Robin Fretwell Wilson’s answer – that these actions (but somehow, not the ones tied to marriage) are simply bigotry – resolves the issue by fiat. In general, I don’t support these accommodation laws. They’re basically a political compromise to get a few more votes, but I think they introduce a dangerous idea that we’ve not allowed with other protected groups: You can discriminate if your religion tells you it’s OK to do so. And I’m not placated by assurances that it’s limited to the marriage context. But think about the problem from another perspective: Do you really want someone who strongly disapproves of your marriage to be the one catering it? Probably not. So can nothing be done? Here’s what I propose: Why not simply remind the religious objectors – I’d support a law spelling this out – that they have a right to clearly state that they oppose same-sex unions and would “prefer to step aside” (borrowing and repurposing language from Professor Wilson here) for religious reasons. There might even be standard, respectful language suggested (not mandated, but perhaps bulletproof against litigation), making clear that the proprietor’s objection is based on religion, not animosity. Not “we don’t like the gays,” but “this establishment is owned and operated by the Smith Family, who hold strong religious beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” What same-sex couple wouldn’t respect that, and go somewhere else – if they could? Note that this isn’t the same as allowing the Smiths to refuse service. It puts the same-sex couple on notice, though, that this establishment might not be their best choice. And, in a progressive area, such a statement would undoubtedly cost the Smiths some business from opposite-sex couples, too. I first made this proposal last year, and it generated a lot of heat – much of it quite negative. But I think the only real alternative is no accommodation at all. That’s hardly an unreasonable position, even for religious organizations when they leave their core mission and participate in secular activities (such as renting out a pavilion for marriages, but then refusing to do so for same-sex couples). So “no accommodation at all” is my close second choice. Even my weak proposal for using the right to speak as a way of avoiding conflict will doubtless infuriate those who think this whole issue is ridiculous, but ask yourself: How would I want to be treated if I were a religious person? (I’m not, in case it matters.) Let the deluge begin. John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things at: http://wordinedgewise.org [4]. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net. [1] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-religion-equality-and-gay-marriage/ [2] http://volokh.com/2009/08/05/no-gay-couples-allowed/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-episcopal-church-top.jpg [4] http://www.365gay.com http://wordinedgewise.org
Contributer: John Culhane
Last week’s column [1] generated an unprecedented deluge of comments – thoughtful, angry, supportive, analytical – but that’s not completely surprising. As I learned when I broached this topic last year [2], any talk about the friction between religion and LGBT equality (and especially marriage equality) brings down the house. Today’s entry will probably destroy the foundation. Recall that the last column ended by asking how to get out of the mess of accommodating religion and an anti-discrimination imperative. Let’s look at a few ideas here. [3] The first is the libertarian position that’s gotten Rand Paul in so much trouble, and that crops up every time anti-discrimination laws are discussed: When it comes to private actors, there should be no such laws. A business owner’s associational freedom trumps the customer’s right to be served. Usually that’s followed by the hope that most business owners aren’t economically dumb enough to act on their prejudices. I used to have more respect for this position than I do today. The experience of social and political history makes it clear that people can and do discriminate all the time, and that we’ve made a collective judgment that we’re not going to tolerate it. Politically – and for me, morally – that ship has long sailed. A few other creative ideas are out there. One especially clever commenter last week suggested that we allow an accommodation for those who would have to be “bodily” involved in the wedding – so photographers wouldn’t be forced to shoot a same-sex wedding party; florists wouldn’t have to be scurrying around at the reception, but would have to sell flowers from their store, and so on. I don’t like this for the same reason I don’t like the so-called “hardship exception” for couples who don’t have choices (there’s only one wedding photographer in town, for example). Both seem like recipes for endless litigation: “We had a hardship.” “No, you didn’t.” Stop it, please. Moreover, no one’s been able to explain why any of these suggested accommodations, once allowed, should be limited to events or businesses somehow “associated” with the wedding. If we’re going to allow religious exemptions based on the immorality of same-sex unions, it’s hard to see any principled reason for rejecting these same reasons in other contexts: Why should I have to rent a home to a lesbian couple, provide health benefits to a gay man’s spouse, or, for that matter, hire a gay man in the first place? Robin Fretwell Wilson’s answer – that these actions (but somehow, not the ones tied to marriage) are simply bigotry – resolves the issue by fiat. In general, I don’t support these accommodation laws. They’re basically a political compromise to get a few more votes, but I think they introduce a dangerous idea that we’ve not allowed with other protected groups: You can discriminate if your religion tells you it’s OK to do so. And I’m not placated by assurances that it’s limited to the marriage context. But think about the problem from another perspective: Do you really want someone who strongly disapproves of your marriage to be the one catering it? Probably not. So can nothing be done? Here’s what I propose: Why not simply remind the religious objectors – I’d support a law spelling this out – that they have a right to clearly state that they oppose same-sex unions and would “prefer to step aside” (borrowing and repurposing language from Professor Wilson here) for religious reasons. There might even be standard, respectful language suggested (not mandated, but perhaps bulletproof against litigation), making clear that the proprietor’s objection is based on religion, not animosity. Not “we don’t like the gays,” but “this establishment is owned and operated by the Smith Family, who hold strong religious beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” What same-sex couple wouldn’t respect that, and go somewhere else – if they could? Note that this isn’t the same as allowing the Smiths to refuse service. It puts the same-sex couple on notice, though, that this establishment might not be their best choice. And, in a progressive area, such a statement would undoubtedly cost the Smiths some business from opposite-sex couples, too. I first made this proposal last year, and it generated a lot of heat – much of it quite negative. But I think the only real alternative is no accommodation at all. That’s hardly an unreasonable position, even for religious organizations when they leave their core mission and participate in secular activities (such as renting out a pavilion for marriages, but then refusing to do so for same-sex couples). So “no accommodation at all” is my close second choice. Even my weak proposal for using the right to speak as a way of avoiding conflict will doubtless infuriate those who think this whole issue is ridiculous, but ask yourself: How would I want to be treated if I were a religious person? (I’m not, in case it matters.) Let the deluge begin. John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things at: http://wordinedgewise.org [4]. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net. [1] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/culhane-religion-equality-and-gay-marriage/ [2] http://volokh.com/2009/08/05/no-gay-couples-allowed/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-episcopal-church-top.jpg [4] http://www.365gay.com http://wordinedgewise.org
Contributer: John Culhane
Eight arrested in GetEqual ENDA protest
Eight protestors with GetEqual [1] were arrested [2] in the Capitol rotunda on Wednesday. They want Speaker Pelosi to push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. “In March, GetEqual held a sit-in in Pelosi’s office asking her to bring ENDA to the floor for a vote," said GetEqual spokesperson Heather Cronk. "At that point, we said we would keep coming back until it was voted on. So this is us making good on our promise, asking her to make good on her promise over the last few years on ENDA.” [3] Pelosi’s spokesperson Drew Hammil encouraged those in support of ENDA to work with the Senate. “Passing ENDA this year is a top priority for the Speaker, but we believe that passing ENDA before DADT repeal has been finalized jeopardizes both initiatives," said Hammill. “Until then, the LGBT community should encourage the Senate to develop a course for ENDA to ensure that when the House passes the legislation, the Senate can move quickly to send the legislation to the President’s desk.” GetEqual brought approximately 20 people to the Capitol, eight of whom volunteered to risk arrest. Most of the protestors left when asked, but those eight remained. According to the Advocate, Orelia Busch, Charles Butler, Sean Carlson, Shannon Cuttle, Robert Diesu, Erika Knepp, David McElhatton and Zack Rosen were arrested. GetEqual activists were also arrested last week at a protest in Las Vegas for ENDA. Former Lieutenant Dan Choi was among those arrested. Cronk said that the group is going to continue its actions outside of DC during August recess. “We plan to hold other lawmakers accountable and we intend to help those lawmakers who haven’t made a commitment to ENDA yet to do so.” [1] http://getequal.org/ [2] http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/28/GetEqual_Protest_at_Capitol_Rotunda/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-get-equal-protest-capitol-rotunda.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Eight protestors with GetEqual [1] were arrested [2] in the Capitol rotunda on Wednesday. They want Speaker Pelosi to push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. “In March, GetEqual held a sit-in in Pelosi’s office asking her to bring ENDA to the floor for a vote," said GetEqual spokesperson Heather Cronk. "At that point, we said we would keep coming back until it was voted on. So this is us making good on our promise, asking her to make good on her promise over the last few years on ENDA.” [3] Pelosi’s spokesperson Drew Hammil encouraged those in support of ENDA to work with the Senate. “Passing ENDA this year is a top priority for the Speaker, but we believe that passing ENDA before DADT repeal has been finalized jeopardizes both initiatives," said Hammill. “Until then, the LGBT community should encourage the Senate to develop a course for ENDA to ensure that when the House passes the legislation, the Senate can move quickly to send the legislation to the President’s desk.” GetEqual brought approximately 20 people to the Capitol, eight of whom volunteered to risk arrest. Most of the protestors left when asked, but those eight remained. According to the Advocate, Orelia Busch, Charles Butler, Sean Carlson, Shannon Cuttle, Robert Diesu, Erika Knepp, David McElhatton and Zack Rosen were arrested. GetEqual activists were also arrested last week at a protest in Las Vegas for ENDA. Former Lieutenant Dan Choi was among those arrested. Cronk said that the group is going to continue its actions outside of DC during August recess. “We plan to hold other lawmakers accountable and we intend to help those lawmakers who haven’t made a commitment to ENDA yet to do so.” [1] http://getequal.org/ [2] http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/28/GetEqual_Protest_at_Capitol_Rotunda/ [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-get-equal-protest-capitol-rotunda.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Texas firefighter’s wife denied benefits because of gender dispute
Texas firefighter Thomas Araguz III died battling a fire on a remote Texas egg farm on July 4. After his death, Araguz’s family filed a lawsuit that would prevent his wife of two years, Nikki Araguz, from receiving death benefits. Thomas’s mother Simona Rodriguez Longoria believes that her son’s marriage to Nikki is invalid because Nikki was born with male genitals and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage. The family’s lawyer claims that Thomas had no knowledge of her condition until after they were married. Nikki tells another story. In an insensitive and offensive interview with a local Texas news station, Araguz [1] was confronted with demanding questions about her gender, her genitals and her marital problems. She insisted that her husband knew of her “birth defect”—whether she is transgender or intersex is unclear—before they married. When the reporter asked if Araguz was born male, she responded: “I do not and have not ever considered myself in that way, but I understand that some people are explaining it like that. And what I’d like to say is that essentially I had a disorder much like anyone else who was born with a birth defect of any kind — no arm, six toes, no vision, OK? There was an anatomical birth defect…” Watch the full interview here. According to Araguz, the couple took all necessary measures to obtain a legal marriage license in the state of Texas. Despite these measures, according to KIRV News, a temporary restraining order was granted to Araguz’s family that keeps Nikki from collecting benefits until the dispute is settled in court. [1] http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/
Contributer: Elise Bish
Texas firefighter Thomas Araguz III died battling a fire on a remote Texas egg farm on July 4. After his death, Araguz’s family filed a lawsuit that would prevent his wife of two years, Nikki Araguz, from receiving death benefits. Thomas’s mother Simona Rodriguez Longoria believes that her son’s marriage to Nikki is invalid because Nikki was born with male genitals and Texas does not recognize same-sex marriage. The family’s lawyer claims that Thomas had no knowledge of her condition until after they were married. Nikki tells another story. In an insensitive and offensive interview with a local Texas news station, Araguz [1] was confronted with demanding questions about her gender, her genitals and her marital problems. She insisted that her husband knew of her “birth defect”—whether she is transgender or intersex is unclear—before they married. When the reporter asked if Araguz was born male, she responded: “I do not and have not ever considered myself in that way, but I understand that some people are explaining it like that. And what I’d like to say is that essentially I had a disorder much like anyone else who was born with a birth defect of any kind — no arm, six toes, no vision, OK? There was an anatomical birth defect…” Watch the full interview here. According to Araguz, the couple took all necessary measures to obtain a legal marriage license in the state of Texas. Despite these measures, according to KIRV News, a temporary restraining order was granted to Araguz’s family that keeps Nikki from collecting benefits until the dispute is settled in court. [1] http://www.queerty.com/dead-firefighter-leaves-behind-transgender-wife-his-family-wants-her-kicked-to-the-curb-20100720/
Contributer: Elise Bish
“Inception” star “of course” has had sex with men
One of the stars of summer box office hit “Inception” told reporters about his sexual relationships with men. The 32-year-old Tom Hardy is engaged to British actress Charlotte Riley, 28, and has a 2-year-old son with a previous girlfriend. When asked if he had ever had sex with a man, Hardy [1] said, “As a boy? Of course I have. I'm an actor for f**k's sake. I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me.” [2] “I'm done experimenting but there's plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life,” he said. “A lot of gay men get my thing for shoes. I have definite feminine qualities and a lot of gay men are incredibly masculine.” In a separate interview, Hardy said, “A lot of people say I seem masculine, but I don't feel it. I feel intrinsically feminine. I'd love to be one of the boys but I always felt a bit on the outside. Maybe my masculine qualities come from overcompensating because I'm not one of the boys.” Hardy met fiancé Riley when the two filmed a BBC remake of Wuthering Heights. He played a gay gangster in Guy Ritchie's hit RocknRolla, where his character had a crush on Gerard Butler’s character. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298384/Inception-hunk-Tom-Hardy-admits-Ive-sexual-relations-men.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-tom-hardy-actor-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
One of the stars of summer box office hit “Inception” told reporters about his sexual relationships with men. The 32-year-old Tom Hardy is engaged to British actress Charlotte Riley, 28, and has a 2-year-old son with a previous girlfriend. When asked if he had ever had sex with a man, Hardy [1] said, “As a boy? Of course I have. I'm an actor for f**k's sake. I've played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I'm in my thirties, it doesn't do it for me.” [2] “I'm done experimenting but there's plenty of stuff in a relationship with another man, especially gay men, that I need in my life,” he said. “A lot of gay men get my thing for shoes. I have definite feminine qualities and a lot of gay men are incredibly masculine.” In a separate interview, Hardy said, “A lot of people say I seem masculine, but I don't feel it. I feel intrinsically feminine. I'd love to be one of the boys but I always felt a bit on the outside. Maybe my masculine qualities come from overcompensating because I'm not one of the boys.” Hardy met fiancé Riley when the two filmed a BBC remake of Wuthering Heights. He played a gay gangster in Guy Ritchie's hit RocknRolla, where his character had a crush on Gerard Butler’s character. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1298384/Inception-hunk-Tom-Hardy-admits-Ive-sexual-relations-men.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-tom-hardy-actor-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Lesbian lieutenant discharged from the Air Force
Lt. Robin Chaurasiya, a lesbian Air Force officer, was honorably discharged on Monday under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This is a reversal [1] of a decision to not dismiss Chaurasiya made by military personnel earlier in her case. Chaurasiya and her girlfriend had a civil union [2] in New Hampshire in December 2009, but at first, the military speculated that she was using Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to get out of serving. [3] Military officials decided not to dismiss Chaurasiya but insisted that she keep quiet about the accusations. "I was encouraged to keep my mouth shut, basically, and that's what really irked me about this ruling was that not only are we going to keep you in, but you have to shut up about it,” said Chaurasiya. Chaurasiya said that her civil union was not a sham and that she is indeed a lesbian. She said she decided to come out in order to make changes in the military: “I felt my situation was hinting at changes. I really thought I would be able to lead the way for a more equal military.” But now she seems less optimistic [4]. "You know, honestly, this whole process has really shown me that change is going to take a long, long time," she said. "I don't have the faith anymore that it's going to happen. In that regard I'm not sorry to be leaving an incredibly prejudiced and discriminatory institution." When she came out publicly- she placed calls to the media- the Air Force reexamined its decision to keep Chaurasiya in the military. Her official honorable discharge came this week. Chaurasiya joined the military by way of an ROTC scholarship to the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. Because she is leaving the Air Force before her contract is up, she has been ordered to pay back $16,000 [5] that she received from the ROTC. This is not the first time the ROTC insisted on scholarships being repaid by military members who were discharged because of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In May, ROTC asked Sara Isaacson [6] to repay her $80,000 scholarship after she came out. "It's definitely going to be a bittersweet day on Monday," Chaurasiya said. "You can't just deny the fact this has been such a huge part of my life for however many years, ever since I started ROTC." [1] http://www.365gay.com/uncategorized/air-force-unsure-if-servicemember-is-a-lesbian/ [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/20/news/sc-dc-dont-ask20-20100420-14 [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-robin-chaurasiya-top.jpg [4] http://www.bnd.com/2010/07/26/1341636/lesbian-officer-exits-air-force.html [5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/26/98127/lesbian-officer-leaves-air-force.html [6] http://www.365gay.com/news/rotc-student-must-return-80000-scholarship-after-coming-out/
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Lt. Robin Chaurasiya, a lesbian Air Force officer, was honorably discharged on Monday under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This is a reversal [1] of a decision to not dismiss Chaurasiya made by military personnel earlier in her case. Chaurasiya and her girlfriend had a civil union [2] in New Hampshire in December 2009, but at first, the military speculated that she was using Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to get out of serving. [3] Military officials decided not to dismiss Chaurasiya but insisted that she keep quiet about the accusations. "I was encouraged to keep my mouth shut, basically, and that's what really irked me about this ruling was that not only are we going to keep you in, but you have to shut up about it,” said Chaurasiya. Chaurasiya said that her civil union was not a sham and that she is indeed a lesbian. She said she decided to come out in order to make changes in the military: “I felt my situation was hinting at changes. I really thought I would be able to lead the way for a more equal military.” But now she seems less optimistic [4]. "You know, honestly, this whole process has really shown me that change is going to take a long, long time," she said. "I don't have the faith anymore that it's going to happen. In that regard I'm not sorry to be leaving an incredibly prejudiced and discriminatory institution." When she came out publicly- she placed calls to the media- the Air Force reexamined its decision to keep Chaurasiya in the military. Her official honorable discharge came this week. Chaurasiya joined the military by way of an ROTC scholarship to the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. Because she is leaving the Air Force before her contract is up, she has been ordered to pay back $16,000 [5] that she received from the ROTC. This is not the first time the ROTC insisted on scholarships being repaid by military members who were discharged because of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In May, ROTC asked Sara Isaacson [6] to repay her $80,000 scholarship after she came out. "It's definitely going to be a bittersweet day on Monday," Chaurasiya said. "You can't just deny the fact this has been such a huge part of my life for however many years, ever since I started ROTC." [1] http://www.365gay.com/uncategorized/air-force-unsure-if-servicemember-is-a-lesbian/ [2] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/20/news/sc-dc-dont-ask20-20100420-14 [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-robin-chaurasiya-top.jpg [4] http://www.bnd.com/2010/07/26/1341636/lesbian-officer-exits-air-force.html [5] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/26/98127/lesbian-officer-leaves-air-force.html [6] http://www.365gay.com/news/rotc-student-must-return-80000-scholarship-after-coming-out/
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Wed. Watercooler: How to target Target
Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s theory of late-in-life lesbianism. The View’s conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck [1]—famously known for making controversial statements—has once again caused an uproar. During a discussion of “late-in-life” lesbians that would give Adrienne Rich [2] a coronary, Hasselbeck claims the women who pair with other women after years of heterosexuality are doing so because there are no available men. “They [men] are leaving women with no one” because they are dating younger women, she argued. Hasselbeck’s statement not only makes lesbianism an act of desperation, but also denies older women their sexuality, implying that they are desperate for companionship and not interested in sex. "Being gay is not just holding hands and walking through the tulips," Joy Behar contested. "I don't think you suddenly wake up one day and say, 'Oh, I wanted to do that.' You wanted to do it, but you were just trapped in a system that has just said, 'get married.'" Watch the debate… Rejected “Idol” sues for $300 million. Ian Benardo [3], the “American Idol” reject who sole the mic from Dane Cook during this season’s finale, is suing the show for $300 million for loss of employment and emotional injuries. TMZ [4] reports that Benardo filed a suit with the New York State Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that Dane Cook personally threatened him after the show and that an "Idol" producer told him that Cook wanted to "shove this mic up your ass but you would like it." [5] Ian Benardo at this years "Idol" finale Benardo told TMZ that producers "exploited ... my sexual orientation" by instructing him to "gay it up." More support for UAFA. A total of 25 cities and municipalities throughout the country—in addition to the entire state of California—support the Uniting American Families Act [6], according to Out4Immigration [7]. The bill would allow U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the United States. In the past two weeks, three cities have joined the list: Lakewood, Ohio, Cathedral City, California and State College, Pennsylvania. These 25 cities’ elected officials have passed resolutions calling on their state's Congressional representatives and Senators to become co-sponsors of UAFA. The bill has been co-signed by 122 representatives in the House [8] and 25 in the Senate [9]. Thanks to volunteers, this grassroots group is growing strong. To help the cause, join the letter writing campaign [10]. Target Target with a LGBT boycott. Target [11]’s recent support—a gift of $150,000—of anti-gay Minnesota Republican candidate Tom Emmer is leading many members of the LGBT community to consider of a Target embargo. If you would like to join the Target boycott [12], but you’re not sure how: join the boycott’s Facebook [13] page for letter writing directions or sign the petition at change.com [14]. [15] [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-out4immigration.jpg [2] http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm [3] http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/27/american-idol-sued-ian-benardo/ [4] http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=f228cc62-940b-4497-a718-1aaabcd52691&isShareURL=true [5] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-american-idol-ian-benardo.jpg [6] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/page.html?s=immeqla&cid=1131 [7] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/homepage.html [8] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01024:@@@P [9] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00424:@@@P [10] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/content_detail.asp?s=immeqla&id=1363&ctid=147 [11] http://www.365gay.com/news/target-ceo-defends-minn-donations/ [12] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/neff-buying-or-not-gay-power/ [13] http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113388515378111&v=info#!/pages/Boycott-Target-Until-They-Cease-Funding-Anti-Gay-Politics/147077835306202?ref=ts [14] http://www.change.org/petitions/view/demand_target_stop_donating_to_anti-gay_politicians [15] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-target-shopping-cart-top.jpg
Contributer: Elise Bish
Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s theory of late-in-life lesbianism. The View’s conservative co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck [1]—famously known for making controversial statements—has once again caused an uproar. During a discussion of “late-in-life” lesbians that would give Adrienne Rich [2] a coronary, Hasselbeck claims the women who pair with other women after years of heterosexuality are doing so because there are no available men. “They [men] are leaving women with no one” because they are dating younger women, she argued. Hasselbeck’s statement not only makes lesbianism an act of desperation, but also denies older women their sexuality, implying that they are desperate for companionship and not interested in sex. "Being gay is not just holding hands and walking through the tulips," Joy Behar contested. "I don't think you suddenly wake up one day and say, 'Oh, I wanted to do that.' You wanted to do it, but you were just trapped in a system that has just said, 'get married.'" Watch the debate… Rejected “Idol” sues for $300 million. Ian Benardo [3], the “American Idol” reject who sole the mic from Dane Cook during this season’s finale, is suing the show for $300 million for loss of employment and emotional injuries. TMZ [4] reports that Benardo filed a suit with the New York State Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that Dane Cook personally threatened him after the show and that an "Idol" producer told him that Cook wanted to "shove this mic up your ass but you would like it." [5] Ian Benardo at this years "Idol" finale Benardo told TMZ that producers "exploited ... my sexual orientation" by instructing him to "gay it up." More support for UAFA. A total of 25 cities and municipalities throughout the country—in addition to the entire state of California—support the Uniting American Families Act [6], according to Out4Immigration [7]. The bill would allow U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the United States. In the past two weeks, three cities have joined the list: Lakewood, Ohio, Cathedral City, California and State College, Pennsylvania. These 25 cities’ elected officials have passed resolutions calling on their state's Congressional representatives and Senators to become co-sponsors of UAFA. The bill has been co-signed by 122 representatives in the House [8] and 25 in the Senate [9]. Thanks to volunteers, this grassroots group is growing strong. To help the cause, join the letter writing campaign [10]. Target Target with a LGBT boycott. Target [11]’s recent support—a gift of $150,000—of anti-gay Minnesota Republican candidate Tom Emmer is leading many members of the LGBT community to consider of a Target embargo. If you would like to join the Target boycott [12], but you’re not sure how: join the boycott’s Facebook [13] page for letter writing directions or sign the petition at change.com [14]. [15] [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-out4immigration.jpg [2] http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm [3] http://www.tmz.com/2010/07/27/american-idol-sued-ian-benardo/ [4] http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=f228cc62-940b-4497-a718-1aaabcd52691&isShareURL=true [5] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-american-idol-ian-benardo.jpg [6] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/page.html?s=immeqla&cid=1131 [7] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/homepage.html [8] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01024:@@@P [9] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00424:@@@P [10] http://www.out4immigration.org/immigration/content_detail.asp?s=immeqla&id=1363&ctid=147 [11] http://www.365gay.com/news/target-ceo-defends-minn-donations/ [12] http://www.365gay.com/opinion/neff-buying-or-not-gay-power/ [13] http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113388515378111&v=info#!/pages/Boycott-Target-Until-They-Cease-Funding-Anti-Gay-Politics/147077835306202?ref=ts [14] http://www.change.org/petitions/view/demand_target_stop_donating_to_anti-gay_politicians [15] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-target-shopping-cart-top.jpg
Contributer: Elise Bish
Media covers gay marriage minimally
Just 0.3 percent of the news in 2009 devoted to same-sex marriage according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism examining media coverage [1]. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8; Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled Iowans had a right to gay marriage, marriage equality battles were fought in Maine and Washington state, and Washington D.C. legalized gay marriage. [2] The study broke down the analysis by type of media outlet and found that marriage equality was covered most by newspapers, counting for 0.5 percent of news stories. In online news sources, gay marriage was 0.3 percent of coverage. Evening network news covered gay marriage the least; just 0.1 percent of stories were about the topic. Unsurprisingly, MSNBC (which airs The Rachel Maddow Show, hosted by the first openly-gay anchor to host a prime-time news show program in the country) covered gay marriage the more than any other cable networks, while Fox covered it the least. Twenty percent of news stories were on the economy, one percent was devoted to Michael Jackson, and race, gender and gay issues counted for 1.7 percent. [1] http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/year_overview.php [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-media-magazine-kiosk-Newspaper-vendor-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Just 0.3 percent of the news in 2009 devoted to same-sex marriage according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism examining media coverage [1]. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8; Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled Iowans had a right to gay marriage, marriage equality battles were fought in Maine and Washington state, and Washington D.C. legalized gay marriage. [2] The study broke down the analysis by type of media outlet and found that marriage equality was covered most by newspapers, counting for 0.5 percent of news stories. In online news sources, gay marriage was 0.3 percent of coverage. Evening network news covered gay marriage the least; just 0.1 percent of stories were about the topic. Unsurprisingly, MSNBC (which airs The Rachel Maddow Show, hosted by the first openly-gay anchor to host a prime-time news show program in the country) covered gay marriage the more than any other cable networks, while Fox covered it the least. Twenty percent of news stories were on the economy, one percent was devoted to Michael Jackson, and race, gender and gay issues counted for 1.7 percent. [1] http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/year_overview.php [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-media-magazine-kiosk-Newspaper-vendor-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Gay men in the U.K. and the U.S. differ in definitions of sex
A recent study conducted by the Kinsey Institute found that gay men in the U.K. and the U.S. define having “had sex [1]” differently. The study, published in the July issue of the journal AIDS Care, compared 180 gay men in the U.K. ages 18 to 56 to190 gay men in the U.S. ages 18 to 74. While nearly all agreed that penile-anal intercourse constituted having “had sex,” opinions differed when it came to other interpretations of sex. [2] Gay men in the U.K. were found to have a broader definition of sex. Of the U.K. gay men, 84.9 percent agreed that giving oral-genital stimulation constituted sex, compared to 71.6 percent of U.S. gay men. Fewer men defined giving and receiving oral-anal stimulation as having “had sex,” with 78.4 percent of U.K. gay men defining it this way, and 61.2 percent of U.S. gay men. Giving and receiving manual-anal stimulation was called sex by 70.9 percent of the U.K. men, while just 53.4 percent of the U.S. men agreed. The greatest difference in interpretation of what constitutes having “had sex” was how gay men viewed giving and receiving sex toy stimulation. While 77.1 percent of U.K. gay men saw this stimulation as sex, only 55 percent of U.S. gay men agreed Subjects’ definitions of having “had sex” has implications for the health world because it affects men’s number of reported “sexual partners” and frequency of “sexual encounters,” two inquiries often made by doctors about patients’ sexual health. Lead author of the study, Brandon Hill, a researcher at the Kinsey Institute said, “It is important for researchers and clinicians not to assume that their definition of 'sex' is shared by their participant or patient, and to use behaviorally specific criteria when conducting sex-behavior assessments, especially when assessing risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infection transmission.” [1] http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/15077.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/expert-sex-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
A recent study conducted by the Kinsey Institute found that gay men in the U.K. and the U.S. define having “had sex [1]” differently. The study, published in the July issue of the journal AIDS Care, compared 180 gay men in the U.K. ages 18 to 56 to190 gay men in the U.S. ages 18 to 74. While nearly all agreed that penile-anal intercourse constituted having “had sex,” opinions differed when it came to other interpretations of sex. [2] Gay men in the U.K. were found to have a broader definition of sex. Of the U.K. gay men, 84.9 percent agreed that giving oral-genital stimulation constituted sex, compared to 71.6 percent of U.S. gay men. Fewer men defined giving and receiving oral-anal stimulation as having “had sex,” with 78.4 percent of U.K. gay men defining it this way, and 61.2 percent of U.S. gay men. Giving and receiving manual-anal stimulation was called sex by 70.9 percent of the U.K. men, while just 53.4 percent of the U.S. men agreed. The greatest difference in interpretation of what constitutes having “had sex” was how gay men viewed giving and receiving sex toy stimulation. While 77.1 percent of U.K. gay men saw this stimulation as sex, only 55 percent of U.S. gay men agreed Subjects’ definitions of having “had sex” has implications for the health world because it affects men’s number of reported “sexual partners” and frequency of “sexual encounters,” two inquiries often made by doctors about patients’ sexual health. Lead author of the study, Brandon Hill, a researcher at the Kinsey Institute said, “It is important for researchers and clinicians not to assume that their definition of 'sex' is shared by their participant or patient, and to use behaviorally specific criteria when conducting sex-behavior assessments, especially when assessing risk of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infection transmission.” [1] http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/15077.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/expert-sex-top.jpg
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Ask the Expert: Two bachelorettes, one party?
Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don't know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your etiquette questions for your gay wedding by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com. Q My two best friends are engaged to each other, and I am part of the wedding party. I want to plan a bachelorette party for my friends, but I'm a little unsure of how to proceed. The traditional bachelorette party is usually a night out without your fiancée, a time to celebrate your last few days of singlehood. While I think each girl deserves her own special night, they share the same group of friends, so the guest list would essentially be the same for both parties. Some guests will be travelling from out of town, and I want to be conscious of their budgets for travel and accommodations. Additionally, I'm not sure if I have the resources to throw two awesome parties back-to-back (I just finished grad school). Is there a way to tastefully plan a single party, or should I go for separate celebrations? I really want to do something special for my friends before their big day! [1] A Have you asked them what they want? They may want to have it together, too. I know you’re probably wanting it to all be big surprise, but a short conversation inquiring if they have envisioned their bachelorette party together or not—or would be open to it—will give you the best motivation. There are absolutely plenty of ways to celebrate them with a single party, while at the same time giving them each the attention that’s so important at one of these shindigs: Enlist another good friend from your group to be in charge of one of the women’s fun all night, and you take the other. Make a list of all the things that make each woman special, and brainstorm on ways to honor her that night. One fun way to bring all these personality traits together is with a scavenger hunt—one for each woman. Perhaps one loves to salsa dance, so one of her challenges would be to find a stranger to salsa with her for one minute at a Latin dance club. And maybe the other one gets a lot of admiration for her rack … so give her the task of getting a woman to give up her bra for a photo. Perhaps one woman loves karaoke, so have the other one sing the karaoke lover’s favorite song. The list goes on with fun excursions: Have both women find other women in a club with the same color eyes as a mate (must take a photo) or the same name. Pick up another woman with the same line that worked for you and your fiancée. Of course, this is all in good fun, so obviously no one’s trying to really pick anyone up. The spirit of the bachelorette party is celebrating your single days before you’re sworn to one person for the rest of your life. But more than that, especially for a couple’s bachelorette party, is having fun with friends and letting loose. How loose you want to go is up to you! However you plan the night—whether it’s in one place or several—keeping a friend assigned to each woman will ensure that they feel particularly special on this night. Try to separate the group a couple of times during the night with each woman going with a different bunch. And during those times, make an extra special effort to make it like a single night out. Maybe at that time you could give her trashy lingerie or boxers with dirty words on them. It all depends on your personalities. Just have fun! Kirsten Palladino is the editor in chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at http://www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer couples a guide to their weddings, a social community and a marketplace of vetted LGBT-friendly wedding vendors. Follow Equally Wed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/equallywed [3]. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-lesbian-couple-marriage-beach-top.jpg [2] http://www.equallywed.com/ [3] http://www.twitter.com/equallywed
Contributer: Kirsten Palladino
Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don't know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your etiquette questions for your gay wedding by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com. Q My two best friends are engaged to each other, and I am part of the wedding party. I want to plan a bachelorette party for my friends, but I'm a little unsure of how to proceed. The traditional bachelorette party is usually a night out without your fiancée, a time to celebrate your last few days of singlehood. While I think each girl deserves her own special night, they share the same group of friends, so the guest list would essentially be the same for both parties. Some guests will be travelling from out of town, and I want to be conscious of their budgets for travel and accommodations. Additionally, I'm not sure if I have the resources to throw two awesome parties back-to-back (I just finished grad school). Is there a way to tastefully plan a single party, or should I go for separate celebrations? I really want to do something special for my friends before their big day! [1] A Have you asked them what they want? They may want to have it together, too. I know you’re probably wanting it to all be big surprise, but a short conversation inquiring if they have envisioned their bachelorette party together or not—or would be open to it—will give you the best motivation. There are absolutely plenty of ways to celebrate them with a single party, while at the same time giving them each the attention that’s so important at one of these shindigs: Enlist another good friend from your group to be in charge of one of the women’s fun all night, and you take the other. Make a list of all the things that make each woman special, and brainstorm on ways to honor her that night. One fun way to bring all these personality traits together is with a scavenger hunt—one for each woman. Perhaps one loves to salsa dance, so one of her challenges would be to find a stranger to salsa with her for one minute at a Latin dance club. And maybe the other one gets a lot of admiration for her rack … so give her the task of getting a woman to give up her bra for a photo. Perhaps one woman loves karaoke, so have the other one sing the karaoke lover’s favorite song. The list goes on with fun excursions: Have both women find other women in a club with the same color eyes as a mate (must take a photo) or the same name. Pick up another woman with the same line that worked for you and your fiancée. Of course, this is all in good fun, so obviously no one’s trying to really pick anyone up. The spirit of the bachelorette party is celebrating your single days before you’re sworn to one person for the rest of your life. But more than that, especially for a couple’s bachelorette party, is having fun with friends and letting loose. How loose you want to go is up to you! However you plan the night—whether it’s in one place or several—keeping a friend assigned to each woman will ensure that they feel particularly special on this night. Try to separate the group a couple of times during the night with each woman going with a different bunch. And during those times, make an extra special effort to make it like a single night out. Maybe at that time you could give her trashy lingerie or boxers with dirty words on them. It all depends on your personalities. Just have fun! Kirsten Palladino is the editor in chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at http://www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer couples a guide to their weddings, a social community and a marketplace of vetted LGBT-friendly wedding vendors. Follow Equally Wed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/equallywed [3]. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-lesbian-couple-marriage-beach-top.jpg [2] http://www.equallywed.com/ [3] http://www.twitter.com/equallywed
Contributer: Kirsten Palladino
Lady Gaga offers support to homeless LGBT youth
Together with tour sponsor Virgin Mobile, Lady Gaga has reached out to homeless youth shelters who serve LGBT youth in a national campaign to attract volunteerism to an admirable cause. The singer targeted organizations in 25 cities with a key focus on homeless LGBT youth. In exchange for an eight hours contribution to one of the selected shelters, some worthy Gaga fans will receive free tickets to her sold-out Monster Ball tour. [1] A group of diehard fans, kicked off the campaign Tuesday at Hollywood’s Covenant House in Los Angeles. Fourteen volunteers spent much of the day painting the common room the outreach center. According to the Advocate, Covenant House is the only program of its kind in the city. The organization provides shelter, counseling medical services and career and financial advice to homeless youth. “I’d say about 10% of our youth are LGBT,” said Sylvia LaMalfa, Associate Executive Director of Covenant House California. “It’s sad to say, but a disproportionately high number of youth are driven from their homes because they’re LGBT.” Although free concert tickets were an added incentive, many of the day’s volunteers seemed invested in helping LGBT youth. “If it wasn’t benefiting LGBT youth, I don’t know if we’d have been quite as eager to do this,” 18-year-old volunteer David told the Advocate. “But it’s important to us — and you get Lady Gaga tickets.” [1] http://www.365gay.com../wp-content/uploads/news-lady-gaga-equality-top.jpg
Contributer: Shamecca Harris
Together with tour sponsor Virgin Mobile, Lady Gaga has reached out to homeless youth shelters who serve LGBT youth in a national campaign to attract volunteerism to an admirable cause. The singer targeted organizations in 25 cities with a key focus on homeless LGBT youth. In exchange for an eight hours contribution to one of the selected shelters, some worthy Gaga fans will receive free tickets to her sold-out Monster Ball tour. [1] A group of diehard fans, kicked off the campaign Tuesday at Hollywood’s Covenant House in Los Angeles. Fourteen volunteers spent much of the day painting the common room the outreach center. According to the Advocate, Covenant House is the only program of its kind in the city. The organization provides shelter, counseling medical services and career and financial advice to homeless youth. “I’d say about 10% of our youth are LGBT,” said Sylvia LaMalfa, Associate Executive Director of Covenant House California. “It’s sad to say, but a disproportionately high number of youth are driven from their homes because they’re LGBT.” Although free concert tickets were an added incentive, many of the day’s volunteers seemed invested in helping LGBT youth. “If it wasn’t benefiting LGBT youth, I don’t know if we’d have been quite as eager to do this,” 18-year-old volunteer David told the Advocate. “But it’s important to us — and you get Lady Gaga tickets.” [1] http://www.365gay.com../wp-content/uploads/news-lady-gaga-equality-top.jpg
Contributer: Shamecca Harris
Withers: O’Reilly slams Obama for DADT
[1] Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly has been slammed many a time here. All of it richly deserved for Poppa Bear is an insufferable bore. However, and it hurts me to say this, the O'Reilly is spot on when it comes "Don't Ask, Don' Tell." He was on the Jay Leno Show [2] this week and took President Obama to task for not issuing an executive order on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." If I were a betting man, I would put good money the Fox News host would be loudly complaining about the over reach of presidential power, but no need to nitpick what ifs. “It’s just not fair, we should stop this nonsense,” said O’Reilly. In these partisan times DADT is one of the few things that gets overall censure. More than three-fourths of Americans [3]want troops to serve openly. Sure there are notable exceptions, like the "scholars" over at the Family Research Council. Yet their anti-gay hysteria is a bit apparent, especially when they come up with theories [4] best filmed by gay pornographers. Obama has been slow walking appeal, and it remains to be seen what will happen after the Defense Department [5] releases its December 1 report. Information gathering for this study has been riddled with problems, the biggest one being gay soldiers can still be booted out. Another problem is that as of now only 10 percent [6] of soldier surveys have been returned. Could it be troops do not want to be part of a game that is rigged? [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/OReilly-top.jpg [2] http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-on-tony-hayward-im-giving-al-qaeda-directions-to-his-house/ [3] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99689-poll-78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell [4] http://www.365gay.com/blog/052710-conservatives-are-going-kooky-with-their-dadt-repeal-theories/ [5] http://www.365gay.com/blog/062810-an-overview-of-the-pentagon-dadt-study/ [6] http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/only-10-of-dadt-surveys-turned-in/
Contributer: James Withers
[1] Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly has been slammed many a time here. All of it richly deserved for Poppa Bear is an insufferable bore. However, and it hurts me to say this, the O'Reilly is spot on when it comes "Don't Ask, Don' Tell." He was on the Jay Leno Show [2] this week and took President Obama to task for not issuing an executive order on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." If I were a betting man, I would put good money the Fox News host would be loudly complaining about the over reach of presidential power, but no need to nitpick what ifs. “It’s just not fair, we should stop this nonsense,” said O’Reilly. In these partisan times DADT is one of the few things that gets overall censure. More than three-fourths of Americans [3]want troops to serve openly. Sure there are notable exceptions, like the "scholars" over at the Family Research Council. Yet their anti-gay hysteria is a bit apparent, especially when they come up with theories [4] best filmed by gay pornographers. Obama has been slow walking appeal, and it remains to be seen what will happen after the Defense Department [5] releases its December 1 report. Information gathering for this study has been riddled with problems, the biggest one being gay soldiers can still be booted out. Another problem is that as of now only 10 percent [6] of soldier surveys have been returned. Could it be troops do not want to be part of a game that is rigged? [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/OReilly-top.jpg [2] http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-oreilly-on-tony-hayward-im-giving-al-qaeda-directions-to-his-house/ [3] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99689-poll-78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell [4] http://www.365gay.com/blog/052710-conservatives-are-going-kooky-with-their-dadt-repeal-theories/ [5] http://www.365gay.com/blog/062810-an-overview-of-the-pentagon-dadt-study/ [6] http://www.sldn.org/blog/archives/only-10-of-dadt-surveys-turned-in/
Contributer: James Withers
Study: Children adopted by gays and lesbians develop well
Children adopted by gay and lesbian [1] couples developed just as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples, according to a new study from the University of Virginia and George Washington University. The study, published in the August issue of Applied Developmental Science, sampled 106 adopted children living in different parts of the U.S. The parents of the adopted children consisted of 27 lesbian couples, 29 gay male couples and 50 heterosexual couples. [2] The study found that the development of the adopted children was not related to the sexual orientation of the parents who adopted them. "We found that children adopted by lesbian and gay couples are thriving," said UVA psychology professor Charlotte J. Patterson, who led the study. "Our results provide no justification for denying lesbian or gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children. With thousands of children in need of permanent homes in the United States alone, our findings suggest that outreach to lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents might benefit children who are in need," she said. Adoption by gay couples is illegal in Florida, Mississippi, and Utah. A study [3] published in Pediatrics in June found that children of lesbians were better psychologically adjusted than children of heterosexual couples. [1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-brief-lesbian-parents-top.jpg [3] http://www.365gay.com http://www.365gay.com/news/kids-of-lesbians-better-off/
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Children adopted by gay and lesbian [1] couples developed just as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples, according to a new study from the University of Virginia and George Washington University. The study, published in the August issue of Applied Developmental Science, sampled 106 adopted children living in different parts of the U.S. The parents of the adopted children consisted of 27 lesbian couples, 29 gay male couples and 50 heterosexual couples. [2] The study found that the development of the adopted children was not related to the sexual orientation of the parents who adopted them. "We found that children adopted by lesbian and gay couples are thriving," said UVA psychology professor Charlotte J. Patterson, who led the study. "Our results provide no justification for denying lesbian or gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children. With thousands of children in need of permanent homes in the United States alone, our findings suggest that outreach to lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents might benefit children who are in need," she said. Adoption by gay couples is illegal in Florida, Mississippi, and Utah. A study [3] published in Pediatrics in June found that children of lesbians were better psychologically adjusted than children of heterosexual couples. [1] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-brief-lesbian-parents-top.jpg [3] http://www.365gay.com http://www.365gay.com/news/kids-of-lesbians-better-off/
Contributer: Celeste Lavin
Neff: Buying (or not) = gay power
A new market analysis puts the annual buying power [1] of U.S. LGBT adults at $743 billion. That’s down a bit from recent years due to the fact we’ve suffered a recession - but still, $743 billion, that’s a powerful figure. Surveys such as the one released on LGBT buying power by Packaged Facts and Witeck-Combs Communications are typically used to guide companies to target a certain niche market with ads and products. But we can use this survey to remind companies and the elected officials who seem so interested in harmonizing with the business world that in this equation, we who do the buying have the power. [2] Buying power is another term for measuring disposable income — the after-tax bread we have to spend or invest or save or donate. When we buy, we don’t just consume goods and services, we invest in the makers of those goods and services, the distributors of those goods and services, the sellers of those goods and services. And we make statements about our choices — lots of statements. I’m not cheap or thrifty, but I when I spend money I try to give some consideration to whether this company, this person, this product is good for me and my people, for my community and my causes. A lot of surveys indicate many other LGBT consumers shop for goods and services in the same manner, which brings me to the value of boycotts and buycotts. A couple of weeks ago, with the response to the Hawaii governor’s veto of the civil unions bill, there was much talk of boycotting the state and whether such an action would serve a purpose. And there was a more cautious call from some LGBT groups to instead launch a buycott in Hawaii, encouraging consumers to patronize the businesses that had asked the governor to sign the civil unions bill. About the same time, the American Family Association was calling for a boycott of Home Depot because the hardware/home improvement store has supported LGBT pride celebrations. To counter, LGBT activists called for a buycott at Home Depot. And, more recently, activists have gone back and forth over a boycott of Target following press reports that parent company's cash has found its way to the campaign for a conservative anti-gay lawmaker in Minnesota. Will we be able to measure the success or failure of any of these efforts? If the target of a campaign reverses course, yes, but otherwise, right now, the effectiveness of consumer-based actions can really only be qualified with anecdotal information, not quantified with loss or gain. So I have to agree with the 365gay.com [3] reader who suggested a couple of weeks ago that an online clearinghouse be established to track LGBT consumer-based sanctions. The reader wrote, “We badly need some kind of ‘boycott office,’ perhaps located in GLAAD or NGLTF or some other group. When things happen that disappoint us or there is some blazing act of homophobia, we immediately talk about boycotts, but generally people forget about it or it becomes just a personal thing. Yet boycotts can be very effective. We need some office to decide the pros and cons of particular boycotts and to publicize them.” Yes, maybe not a clearinghouse under an established organization, especially if it seeks corporate sponsors, but an operation that can provide an authoritative, comprehensive, independent and timely website for updates, the collection of consumer commitments to campaigns, the answering questions and the charting of losses and gains. Updates: A buycott officially began July 14 in Hawaii, where Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill earlier in the month. Consumer comments: “My husband and I are marrying in Massachusetts and we had planned to honeymoon in Hawaii. Not now.…” Consumer questions: Is it OK to drink Coors beer? I know there was a boycott at one time.… Tracking: Shares for Company X, under a boycott from the LGBT community, dropped for the fourth consecutive day today. Boycotts cannot succeed if we’re not organized enough to know when to turn on or turn off the cash machine, to know when we’ve won, to know when we’ve got to sign a pledge or send a statement. So, how do we invest and spend our $743 billion? Most on Forbes’ lists of billionaires and millions wouldn’t go at it willy-nilly. And how do we better track that spending? I see the domain name www.lgbtcott.com [4] is still available. [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/lgbt-buying-power-estimated-at-743-billion/ [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/ask-piggy-bank-money-finance-top.jpg [3] http://365gay.com/ [4] http://www.lgbtcott.com/
Contributer: Lisa Neff
A new market analysis puts the annual buying power [1] of U.S. LGBT adults at $743 billion. That’s down a bit from recent years due to the fact we’ve suffered a recession - but still, $743 billion, that’s a powerful figure. Surveys such as the one released on LGBT buying power by Packaged Facts and Witeck-Combs Communications are typically used to guide companies to target a certain niche market with ads and products. But we can use this survey to remind companies and the elected officials who seem so interested in harmonizing with the business world that in this equation, we who do the buying have the power. [2] Buying power is another term for measuring disposable income — the after-tax bread we have to spend or invest or save or donate. When we buy, we don’t just consume goods and services, we invest in the makers of those goods and services, the distributors of those goods and services, the sellers of those goods and services. And we make statements about our choices — lots of statements. I’m not cheap or thrifty, but I when I spend money I try to give some consideration to whether this company, this person, this product is good for me and my people, for my community and my causes. A lot of surveys indicate many other LGBT consumers shop for goods and services in the same manner, which brings me to the value of boycotts and buycotts. A couple of weeks ago, with the response to the Hawaii governor’s veto of the civil unions bill, there was much talk of boycotting the state and whether such an action would serve a purpose. And there was a more cautious call from some LGBT groups to instead launch a buycott in Hawaii, encouraging consumers to patronize the businesses that had asked the governor to sign the civil unions bill. About the same time, the American Family Association was calling for a boycott of Home Depot because the hardware/home improvement store has supported LGBT pride celebrations. To counter, LGBT activists called for a buycott at Home Depot. And, more recently, activists have gone back and forth over a boycott of Target following press reports that parent company's cash has found its way to the campaign for a conservative anti-gay lawmaker in Minnesota. Will we be able to measure the success or failure of any of these efforts? If the target of a campaign reverses course, yes, but otherwise, right now, the effectiveness of consumer-based actions can really only be qualified with anecdotal information, not quantified with loss or gain. So I have to agree with the 365gay.com [3] reader who suggested a couple of weeks ago that an online clearinghouse be established to track LGBT consumer-based sanctions. The reader wrote, “We badly need some kind of ‘boycott office,’ perhaps located in GLAAD or NGLTF or some other group. When things happen that disappoint us or there is some blazing act of homophobia, we immediately talk about boycotts, but generally people forget about it or it becomes just a personal thing. Yet boycotts can be very effective. We need some office to decide the pros and cons of particular boycotts and to publicize them.” Yes, maybe not a clearinghouse under an established organization, especially if it seeks corporate sponsors, but an operation that can provide an authoritative, comprehensive, independent and timely website for updates, the collection of consumer commitments to campaigns, the answering questions and the charting of losses and gains. Updates: A buycott officially began July 14 in Hawaii, where Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a civil unions bill earlier in the month. Consumer comments: “My husband and I are marrying in Massachusetts and we had planned to honeymoon in Hawaii. Not now.…” Consumer questions: Is it OK to drink Coors beer? I know there was a boycott at one time.… Tracking: Shares for Company X, under a boycott from the LGBT community, dropped for the fourth consecutive day today. Boycotts cannot succeed if we’re not organized enough to know when to turn on or turn off the cash machine, to know when we’ve won, to know when we’ve got to sign a pledge or send a statement. So, how do we invest and spend our $743 billion? Most on Forbes’ lists of billionaires and millions wouldn’t go at it willy-nilly. And how do we better track that spending? I see the domain name www.lgbtcott.com [4] is still available. [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/lgbt-buying-power-estimated-at-743-billion/ [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/ask-piggy-bank-money-finance-top.jpg [3] http://365gay.com/ [4] http://www.lgbtcott.com/
Contributer: Lisa Neff
Connect to the GLBT Market
2 Days of Nightlife | Top Entertainment
See And Be Seen At The #1 GLBT EVENT OF THE YEAR!
See And Be Seen At The #1 GLBT EVENT OF THE YEAR!
The RDP Group
Producers of Total Marketing Concepts
for Trade & Consumer Events
152 Simsbury Road, Bldg. #8 | Avon, CT 06001
Phone:(860)677-0094 | Toll Free: 1-800-243-9774
Fax: (860)677-6869 | E-Mail:info@rdpgroup.com