Sad news: LGBT rights activist Del Martin has died.
Martin, who married her longtime partner Phyllis Lyon on the first day same-sex marriage was legal in California, co-founded (with Lyon) the first national lesbian rights organization, the Daughters of Bilitis in 1955.
Lyon released the following statement on Martin's death: "I am so lucky to have known her, loved her and been her partner in all things. I am devastated, but I take some solace in knowing we were able to enjoy the ultimate rite of love and commitment before she passed." (Emphasis mine)
This is incredibly sad, but what an amazing woman - and an amazing life!
Lapriss Gilbert was forced to leave a federal building after a guard in the Social Security office told her that her "lesbian.com" shirt was offensive.
She said the guard, who works for a private company hired by the Department of Homeland Security, demanded that she leave the building or face arrest.
"As an African-American and a lesbian, I haven't been through one day without facing some sort of discrimination ... but this is just shocking," said Gilbert, 31.
A witness, Paul Dumont said, "For her to be told to leave was completely unnecessary, especially considering how peaceful and quiet she was responding the the security officers." In his statement to police Dumont noted that the guard's "loud, unreasonable, aggressive and angry approach to the situation almost caused chaos."
It looks like Hallmark is targeting a new consumer.
While the language doesn't directly refer to marriage (considering the fact that two states in this country actually recognize gay marriage), they were created shortly after California legalized. The cards have mushy language that could apply to marriage or civil unions like, "Two hearts. One promise."
But, but...it's Hallmark! The corporate monster that commercializes (and banks off of) every holiday to the point of puking, not to mention serves as a huge contributor to the heteronormative machine (Valentine's Day, etc.).
That being said, this has to be more a good thing than bad, no? Thoughts? Has anyone seen any of these cards?
I'm completely smitten with WALL•E, this summer's Pixar/Disney offering. But the last thing I expected to see in my friendly, heterosexual upper east side Manhattan neighborhood movie theater was a feature length cartoon about a pair of lesbian robots who fall madly in love with each other. WALL•E is nothing short of hot, dyke Sci Fi action romance, some seven hundred years in the future! Woo-hoo!
I had similar thoughts while watching the movie about how they were obviously attempting to gender the robots--this is a children's movie for godsake! But similar to the political subtext of the film, there was an interesting subtext about gender and romance that Bornstein explains in her post.
The film makers take a great deal of care in pointing out that WALL•E and EVE's notion of butch/femme romance is based in the world and culture of Hello, Dolly. Hello_dolly_3That's supposed to be a cue for the audience to believe they're a "healthy" heterosexual male and female couple. But it's not proof that they are male or female. And anyway, how camp is Hello, Dolly!?
Is it that simply by looking at the robots, we can tell that WALL•E's a boy and EVE is a girl? What was it up on that screen that defined the robots' gender? Both robots were naked, so we could see their entire anatomy, right? Neither of those robots had a vagina or a penis. Did you see one or the other? Neither robot was sporting an Adam's apple. Neither EVE nor WALL•E flashed any tit that I could see. So, we've got no way to spot those robots as male or female by using secondary sex characteristics. But still, most of us would swear on a stack of holy bibles or holy Gender Trouble that those robots are male and female. How did we most of us come to agree on that?
Not just leather daddies, haha. Well this does warm my heart on some level, but I am cheesy like that. I have known many gay couples through out my life that have desperately wanted to adopt and weren't able to for legal reasons or because of homophobia.
The cost remains high, and a good lawyer is essential. Yet despite complications, the idea of becoming a biological dad with help from a surrogate mother is gaining allure among gay men as the status of "married with children" grows ever more possible.
With same-sex marriage now legal in California even to nonresidents, and Massachusetts extending its 4-year-old gay-marriage policy to out-of-staters, in-wedlock parenting is suddenly a realistic option for gays and lesbians nationwide, even if their home state won't recognize the union.
Fertility clinics and surrogacy programs report increased interest from gay men, while couples who already have children are getting married -- or considering it -- to provide more security for those kids.
But before I keep doing my happy dance, I have some issues with the framing of "married with kids." The fact that it is a very costly thing to either adopt or have surrogacy, makes it something only elite (white, male, upper middle class-as depicted in the picture above) gays can do. Furthermore, the assumption that you have to be married to have children perpetuates the myth that women who have children out of wed-lock are somehow illegitimate. It is a slippery slope while mainstream gay/lesbian rights groups fight for "legitimacy" in the marriage system, there are many many other types of people engaging in alternative sexual behaviors who's rights are not only overlooked but not met through the fight for gay partnerships and adoption rights.
Miriam mentioned the other day that the Democrats had improved the language about reproductive rights in the party platform. Yesterday, however, came the news that they've stripped out the platform's only references to gay and lesbian Americans. Here's the edited version:
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.
Cynical interpretation: They're trying to scale back explicit support for LGBT rights.
Hopeful interpretation: They're defining "families" broadly and inclusively -- not limited to straight or to straight and queer couples.
This ad is apparently airing in California right now:
(There's no spoken commentary -- just images.)
On one level, I really like this approach because it uses the wedding-industrial complex against itself. It takes as a given the fact that many straight people (women in particular) desire and idealize this sort of mega white wedding, and uses that to tug their emotions. I can see how this would be a very compelling. In that, it feels subversive. Taking the ultimate heteronormative, capitalist celebration and turning it into an argument for equality. I like that.
On the other hand, you could argue that this ad is just propping up the same old ideals about extravagant weddings and proper marriages. That it's not subversive at all -- it's more of the same.
A highschool in Okeechobee, FL didn't allow their GSA to organize. They reached out to the ACLU who then filed a federal lawsuit. A year and a half later, the GSA won through one of the first decisions of its kind.
via Alternet.
In his first-of-its-kind decision on July 29, Moore ruled in Yasmin Gonzalez vs. School Board of Okeechobee County that not only can the club meet, but also that a school board "is obligated to take into account the well-being of its non-heterosexual students."
It is one of a kind in that it explicitly states protecting the rights of non-straight conforming students.
Also, via the ACLU website:
"Judge Moore's ruling that GSAs are beneficial to gay students and that they don't harm straight students is unparalleled. This is a clear victory for the students, for the Okeechobee GSA and indeed for all high school students in Florida," said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project. "These are brave students who would not be silenced and did not tolerate discrimination. So many children cannot stand up for themselves, but hopefully this ruling will serve as warning to other Florida schools that equal access truly means equal access, and schools that choose not to follow the law will be inviting similar litigation."
From the Associated Press: "Gay couples in Norway will be granted the same rights as heterosexuals to marry, adopt and undergo artificial insemination under a new equality law passed Tuesday."
Lapriss Gilbert was 
