Federal Judge Strikes Down Montana Marriage Ban
Today U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled against Montana’s constitutional amendment banning marriage equality
HRC.org
Daily Archives: November 19, 2014
Did Andy Cohen Officially Out Kevin Spacey? And Does It Even Matter?
Did Andy Cohen Officially Out Kevin Spacey? And Does It Even Matter?
Despite being photographed playing naked “butt bongos” with male pals while partying off the Croatian coast in 2008, getting snapped by paparazzi getting cozy with a male model in Los Angeles in 2000, or filing a police report after being mugged at 4 a.m. in a London park notorious for gay hookups, 55-year-old Kevin Spacey has always remained tight-lipped about his sexual orientation.
“Let’s let people live their lives and do it the way they want to do it,” he told The Hollywood Reporter earlier this year. “All the chips will fall in the end, and we’ll all be judged by a much higher power.”
But at least one celebrity has had enough of Mr. Spacey’s decision to keep his private life private.
In his new book The Andy Cohen Diaries: A Deep Look at a Shallow Year, total top Andy Cohen has some rather choice words for the Academy Award-winning actor.
In one of his “diary entires” dated September 9, 2013, the reality TV mogul writes that he and his dad were at the U.S. Open men’s finals when they ran into Mr. Spacey: “Kevin Spacey was in front of us with a face full of makeup and three male companions who were definitely NOT raising any questions.”
In another entry, Cohen writes that when fellow gay Neil Patrick Harris dropped by his show, the two dished on Spacey’s sexual orientation: “NPH and I talked about a lot of gay stuff, including debating Kevin Spacey; I still get enraged when I think about him talking about being in love with that woman on 60 Minutes. Come out, sir.”
This begs the question: Does Andy have a point? With more and more celebrities coming out, setting a positive example and paving the way for future generations of LGBT entertainers, should Kevin Spacey follow suit? Or does he have a right to privacy? And what message is he sending by refusing to talk publicly about his sexual orientation?
What do you think? Sound off in the comments section below.
Related stories:
Kevin Spacey Still Bristles Over Esquire Magazine Article That Suggested He’s Gay
These Are Some Of The Greatest Coming Out Stories Of 2014
Kevin Spacey: Not Talking About My Sexuality Doesn’t Mean I’m ‘Living A Lie’
Graham Gremore
Federal Judge Strikes Down Montana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Federal Judge Strikes Down Montana's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
U.S. District Judge Brian Morris (pictured) has ruled that Montana’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, thus making it unconstitutional. Morris’ order is effective immediately and is not stayed, though the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court may still intervene and stay the decision. As Think Progress reports, Morris relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit’s decision which struck down marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada but also tackled head on the question of Baker v. Nelson‘s role in determining whether there exists a constitutional right to marriage, a subject even more in the spotlight now following the Sixth Circuit’s ruling which upheld marriage bans:
Montana, like many states before it, had argued that Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case about same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court decided not to hear, was controlling and thus the court could not challenge the precedent. Here’s how Morris handled that argument:
“Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ complaint presents the same issue rejected in Baker: whether a constitutional right to same-sex marriage exists. The Court agrees. Defendants further argue that no sufficient doctrinal developments have occurred to render this issue a substantial federal question. The Court disagrees.”
Morris also took time to opine about how Montana’s same-sex families will benefit from this ruling:
“These families want for their children what all families in Montana want. They want to provide a safe and loving home in which their children have the chance to explore the world in which they live. They want their children to have the chance to discover their place in this world. And they want their children to have the chance to fulfill their highest dreams. These families, like all of us, want their children to adventure into the world without fear of violence; to achieve all that their talent and perseverance allows without fear of discrimination; and to love themselves so that they can love others. No family wants to deprive its precious children of the chance to marry the loves of their lives. Montana no longer can deprive Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves.”
Read the full decision below:
Montana Same-Sex Marriage Decision by jsnow489
Developing…
Sean Mandell
www.towleroad.com/2014/11/federal-judge-strikes-down-montanas-ban-on-same-sex-marriage.html
GaySavannah.com 2014 LGBT Wedding Expo at the Mansion on Forsyth Park
GaySavannah.com 2014 LGBT Wedding Expo at the Mansion on Forsyth Park
GaySavannah.com hosted Savannah Georgia’s first-ever LGBT Wedding EXPO culminating in an historic mass same-sex commitment ceremony and celebration was hosted in the Viennese Ballroom at …
www.youtube.com/watch?v=adbs4n0bSKk&feature=youtube_gdata
Jason Collins Announces Retirement
Jason Collins Announces Retirement
Collins, the first openly gay active player in a major men’s pro team sport, is ending his basketball career.
Annie Hollenbeck
editorial.advocate.com/sports/2014/11/19/jason-collins-announces-retirement
Open Letter to the FDA: Stop Discriminating Against Gay Men
Open Letter to the FDA: Stop Discriminating Against Gay Men
Gay men cannot donate blood in America.
I was reminded of this discriminatory and illogical policy after a recent conversation about student advocacy on Twitter. In 2005, at the end of my junior year of high school, several friends and I mounted a campaign to change this rule. I wrote letters to and corresponded with members of the Red Cross and independent blood centers. Many of the people I spoke with expressed agreement that the policy was misguided. The medical director at the Red Cross’ Penn-Jersey Region branch, for example, wrote to me on Oct. 3, 2005, that “the American Red Cross believes it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the issue.” I reached out to the FDA, which sets the policy, and spoke with the consumer-safety officer in their Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. After he told me the decision lay with the FDA’s Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC), I followed up by drafting a letter to each of the committee’s members.
By that time, I had begun working for Equality Forum, a Philadelphia-based LGBT nonprofit. I turned the blood drive policy campaign over to my new employer and, for the next two summers, worked primarily on the Fortune 500 Non-Discrimination Project and LGBT History Month. The BPAC never responded to our letter, and the FDA continues to bar gay men from blood donation despite opposition from the American Osteopathic Association and the American Medical Association.
The FDA insists it is “open to changing the lifetime ban and is awaiting the results of new research that will provide additional evidence.” However, despite the FDA’s claims to the contrary, additional evidence is not needed. Evidence clearly supported changing the policy nine years ago, and the evidence is even stronger today.
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services panel recently recommended replacing the lifetime ban with a one-year ban, but this change would only be a marginal improvement; the ban should be lifted altogether. Since the FDA is meeting to discuss the issue on Dec. 2, I am posting an updated, condensed version of my original letter below.
Open Letter
Dear FDA staff,
I wrote to each member of the Blood Products Advisory Committee nine years ago on behalf of dozens of students from Moorestown Friends School and the New Jersey Governor’s School of International Studies. We hoped you would reconsider the FDA’s policy barring “men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977” from donating blood. I remain concerned about this issue and am following up with this “open letter” to continue the conversation. The FDA’s policy still unnecessarily stigmatizes gay men and fails to most effectively “assure the safety” of individuals who receive donated blood.
The FDA claims this policy is warranted because gay men “are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.” While these numbers might sound impressive after a cursory review, they do not justify the policy.
First, homosexual males — men who have had sex with other men — are the only people the FDA bans from donation on the basis of an identity characteristic. While the FDA’s website implies otherwise, profiling on such a basis is discriminatory by definition. Listing statistics about the incidence of HIV in the gay population is eerily similar to overtly racist arguments in favor of racial profiling. The policy is (arguably) wrong regardless of its impact on the blood supply.
Second, the policy does not accurately identify the behaviors that put one at risk for HIV. As shown below, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) periodically publishes the “Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source” (these estimates do not factor in the effects of condom usage):
Consider Tom, Heather, and John, three potential blood donors who don’t know whether or not their sexual partners have HIV. Tom, a gay man, is in a monogamous relationship and only has oral sex. Heather, a straight woman, is in a monogamous relationship and occasionally has anal sex. John, a straight man, has unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse with multiple partners.
According to the CDC’s probabilities, Tom is least likely to contract HIV and taint the blood supply. Yet Tom is the only person the FDA bars from blood donation.
The following revisions to the FDA’s policy would be more likely to “assure the safety” of donated blood:
- Remove the clause identifying “men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977” as high-risk.
- Add a clause identifying “receptive anal sex” as a high-risk behavior.
- Add a clause identifying “unprotected anal and/or vaginal sex with multiple partners” as a high-risk behavior.
A policy that incorrectly identifies high-risk groups instead of high-risk behaviors is neither effective nor just. I hope you will end the FDA’s institutionalized discrimination at your Dec. 2 meeting and look forward to hearing your response.
Sincerely,
Ben Spielberg
A version of this post first appeared on 34justice.
Courageous Transgender Woman & HRC Volunteer Earns Prominent Feature in Mississippi Newspaper
Courageous Transgender Woman & HRC Volunteer Earns Prominent Feature in Mississippi Newspaper
Through ‘Commercial Dispatch’ Story, Blossom Brown talks about living openly & honestly as a transgender Mississippian
HRC.org
Procter & Gamble Comes Out Strong For Same-Sex Marriage, Proves Inclusion Is Good Business
Procter & Gamble Comes Out Strong For Same-Sex Marriage, Proves Inclusion Is Good Business
Few major corporations have a better track record when it comes to internal LGBT policy than Procter & Gamble, and now the consumer product giant has evolved one step further. They’ve publicly embraced same-sex marriage, and in doing so, have set the bar even higher for profit-conscious corporate America.
“We have always supported our employees and fostered a culture of inclusion and respect – this includes the right to marry whomever they choose and to have that union legally recognized,” said Deborah P. Majoras, P&G’s chief legal officer and executive sponsor to GABLE – the company’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender-allied employee group.
The company weighed potential losses from angry customer fallout and decided the reward of supporting their LGBT employees and LGBT people everywhere outweighed any potential risk.
Their decision reflects an impressive history of inclusion within the company.
22 years ago in 1992, P&G first introduced anti-discrimination language into their equal employment opportunity clause. In 2001 they began offering full benefits to domestic partners, and in 2010 decided to include transgender transition benefits in their health package.
They’ve proven that the market can (and should) evolve alongside the rest of society. Meanwhile they continue to focus on their products, and with brands like Tide, Bounty, NyQuil and Crest, it’s hard to imagine sales slowing down by showing the LGBT community support.
Dan Tracer
Freedom to Marry Campaign Director Says Organization Will Disband if Supreme Court Rules for Marriage
Freedom to Marry Campaign Director Says Organization Will Disband if Supreme Court Rules for Marriage
The Washington Blade has a new interview out today with Marc Solomon — National Campaign Director for Freedom to Marry (pictured).
Probably the highlight of the interview comes at the end, when Solomon talks about what happens if the Supreme Court rules for marriage nationwide. Solomon says this would mean the end of Freedom to Marry, because the organization’s goal would be achieved:
We’ve always been set up as a campaign, and we are a campaign, and when we’ve won nationwide, we’re finished…I want to see some of the really good people stick around in LGBT stuff, or in other progressive causes, but Freedom to Marry’s done. That’s I think a great holding out is put yourself out of business.
Solomon is optimistic about such a ruling, deeming it “highly unlikely” that the court will rule against same-sex marriage. Further, with support climbing in the polls, he is “pretty confident” that voters are also more supportive of gay marriage. He suggests there will not be the same opposition to pro-gay marriage ballot marriages we saw in 2012.
Solomon also talks the long road it’s been to this point, saying he must’ve seen “more than 10 field organizers” bit by dogs while going door-to-door. “Other people have been chased down the street by homophobes,” he said. “We don’t send people door-to-door in Cambridge, or in Chelsea, or in parts of the Chicago that we’re doing well.”
Check out the whole interview here.
Jake Folsom
Allen Strickland Williams is a proud member of the LGBT community… –
Allen Strickland Williams is a proud member of the LGBT community… –
Allen Strickland Williams is a proud member of the LGBT community… – bit.ly/1yCtPGo #CONAN This guy was hilarious. Oh no a comedian offended people.. No that’s not what I meant….
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xRtVjYtNmA&feature=youtube_gdata