WATCH: Ellen DeGeneres Discusses Coming Out on 'Oprah's Master Class'

WATCH: Ellen DeGeneres Discusses Coming Out on 'Oprah's Master Class'

Lesbian icon and popular talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, who came out to Oprah Winfrey twice on TV in 1997, reunited with Winfrey for an episode of Oprah’s Master Class on Winfrey’s network Sunday. 

In the episode on OWN, DeGeneres said she never imagined coming out at all and “didn’t think I would be coming out on a show ever.” DeGeneres is most well known for coming out on her sitcom, “Ellen.”  ABC canceled the series shortly after her character came out to a therapist, played by Winfrey and publicly announced “I’m gay” to her love interest, Susan, played by Laura Dern.

DeGeneres herself came out as a lesbian during a 1997 guest appearance on Oprah, Winfrey’s long-running talk show. She currently lives in Los Angeles with her wife, actress Portia de Rossi whom she married in 2008.

In Oprah’s Master Class Ellen said she was inspired by a “hippy course” she took called Inner Dialogue of Your Subconscious Mind. “I wanted to know what the inner dialogue of my subconscious mind was, and it was scary and crazy,” she said. “What came out of listening to what I had been saying to myself is, ‘Would I still be famous? Would they still love me if they knew I was gay?’ And my fear was, ‘No, they wouldn’t.'”

When Ellen rehearsed that key scene in “The Puppy Episode” of the Ellen show, she cried each time her character said “I am gay.” She explained that most people rarely have to announce their sexual orientation: “to say that sentence out loud in front of a whole bunch of people is scary as hell and emotional and empowering which is why most people cry when they tell their parents or tell anybody,” she said.

“I am not fearless. I didn’t do it because I am fearless. I did it in spite of the fact that I was scared to death.” 

Watch an excerpt of Oprah’s Master Class below:

Elizabeth Daley

www.advocate.com/television/2015/10/26/watch-ellen-degeneres-discusses-coming-out-oprahs-master-class

How Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' DOMA Revisionism Harms LGBT Rights

How Hillary Clinton's and Bernie Sanders' DOMA Revisionism Harms LGBT Rights
Over the weekend Bernie Sanders hit Hillary Clinton hard in a speech at the influential Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, in what some are saying is an example of his going negative when he said he wouldn’t. Whatever your take is on that (his campaign says he’s getting “more pointed,” not negative), what Sanders exposed is a simple truth: Clinton, in an interview on Rachel Maddow last week, revised the history of her husband and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Hillary claimed that Bill signed DOMA as a “defensive action” to keep back a possible constitutional amendment:

On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that…And so, in — in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.

It’s a version of a story her campaign put forth in 2008 — and which didn’t really erupt at the time, as it did over the weekend, perhaps because no other candidate challenged it — and it’s similar to how Bill Clinton has revised his own history over a period beginning in 2009 until his 2013 call to overturn DOMA. But as I explained at the time, it’s just not true. There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA and then touted his signing of DOMA in radio ads in the South during the presidendial race against Republican Bob Dole, positioning himself as a defender of “religious freedom.”

”That’s complete nonsense,” Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Chris Geidner in Metro Weekly in 2011. “There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen… That was never an argument made in the ’90s.”

And over the weekend, this was backed up by none other than long-time Clinton friend, Democratic strategist and lesbian activist Hilary Rosen, tweeting that Hillary Clinton should just “stop.”

@BernieSanders is right. Note to my friends Bill and #Hillary: Pls stop saying DOMA was to prevent something worse. It wasnt, I was there.

— Hilary Rosen (@hilaryr) October 25, 2015

The former president of the Human Rights Campaign, Elizabeth Birch, who worked for the group at the time DOMA was pased and signed — and who is also a supporter of Hillary Clinton — took Bill Clinton to task in 2013, clearly refuting this “defensive action” claim, and pointed to the radio ads. Now really, if DOMA was a
“defensive action” taken for our own good, why was Clinton using it for his own good in radio ads in the South? At the time he signed DOMA, Clinton did call the bill “gay-baiting” and didn’t believe it was necessary. But he said he agreed with the substance of it: “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position.”

I believe Bill Clinton could have refused to sign DOMA if he truly thought it was wrong. Dole was way down in the polls, and was not going to beat him by any stretch; Clinton, in my opinion, simply wanted a blowout win.

But, whatever. We can agree to disagree on that. It’s now a different time, and everyone’s evolved and understands what the cultural and political reality was then, right? So why is it so difficult for Hillary Clinton to simply say this: “Yes, after the fact, years later, some Democrats used DOMA to forestall a constitutional amendment when it came up — saying that we don’t need an amendment because we have DOMA — but no, a possible amendment was not something that was a rationale for signing DOMA in 1996. My husband did think DOMA was the result of GOP ‘gay-baiting’ and unnecessary. But he agreed on the substance of it, as did the majority of Americans and the vast majority of Democrats. And we were all wrong. We evolved, as has our current president and the American public. And I’m glad to see DOMA gone.”

Though she was slow to embrace marriage equality and got criticism for not speaking about the continued discrimination affecting LGBT Americans earlier in this campaign — including from me in recent months — Clinton has spoken out more strongly on the issues of LGBT inclusion more recently, promised to push for an all-ecompansing anti-discrimination bill, and even talked of LGBT discrimination in her opening statements at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. She’s grown and responded to critics, and it just wasn’t necessary to revise history to somehow make herself — and her husband — seem more consistently pro-LGBT. (I suspect it’s more so an issue of Bill’s pride — and guilt — but that’s another piece entirely.)

By doing so now she opened herself up to the attack by Sanders and now to criticism by even some of her staunchest supporters who are having to correct the historical record. Other supporters, however, have been defending her on social media, saying the issue isn’t relevant, that the DOMA era was a terrible time and that political realities forced Bill Clinton to sign DOMA. Again, whatever you may think about it, that is not the point. The point is he didn’t sign it to push back a possible amendment. Whether or not it’s relevant to the presidential race now, it is definitely relevant to history. And it cannot go unchallenged.

But while we’re at it, Bernie Sanders is engaging in own window dressing too. Yes, he voted against DOMA — one of only 67 brave House members to do so — and for that he gets a gold star, and it’s certainly something he should be touting (and I’ve urged him to do so). But as Mark Joseph Stern pointed out recently, Sanders actually didn’t support marriage equality at the time — though he’s glossing over that fact now, implying he did support it — and said he voted against DOMA because he thought the states should not be intruded upon by the federal government. His chief of staff insisted he wasn’t “legislating values.” In 2006, two years after Massachusetts became the first state with marriage equality, Sanders identified himself as “a supporter civil unions,” and was still saying “marriage is a state issue.”

Sanders sins of omission are perhaps not as egregious as Clinton’s revisionism, but they still need to be corrected. I understand the passions of those who support each of these or other candidates — or none of them — and the impulse to paper over difficult issue from the past. But if we don’t get LGBT history right, including how our supposed friends dealt with the issue as well — and learn from it– we risk failing to get full equality moving forward.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.



feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677065/s/4afae910/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Cmichelangelo0Esignorile0Chillary0Eclinton0Ebernie0Esa0Ib0I83887260Bhtml0Dutm0Ihp0Iref0Fgay0Evoices0Gir0FGay0KVoices/story01.htm

Open Question: What to do if you get caught making out in all girls school with a girl?

Open Question: What to do if you get caught making out in all girls school with a girl?
So I’m a demipansexual genderfluid ‘girl’ (but lets refer to me as just ‘queer’) (in the closet) who is in an all girls school. I have had this crush on a straight girl for 4 years now and then finally I kissed her on a Friday, and one of my PE teachers walked in, and coughed, trouble is I used to have a crush on this teacher and I got so embarassed I just locked myself into one of the cubicles for half an hour and missed my bus. I have PE with her first thing on Tuesday so idk what to do, I mean my LGBT supportive school tends to out people, like if she questions me she is obliged to send me to a support group if I am not out, and I get my name put on the board which basically outs me. So the kiss (which kind of turned into a full makeout session, which was good for me, as I’m assuming this straight girl is bi/gay/queer because she didn’t do it for attention). So on one side I got to kiss the girl I’ve been crushing on for years, on the other side, my former teacher crush knows I’m queer (and a lot of my teachers, especially her have seen me staring at my crush, so no time to deny anything). So regardless of the support club, should I come out to her (as gay, or bi? Because from my experience they have no idea what demipansexual is) or should I just deny it?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20151026071009AAjCR3J

WATCH: New York Giants Become First NFL Team To Tackle Homophobia In Sports

WATCH: New York Giants Become First NFL Team To Tackle Homophobia In Sports

New York Giants homophobia

In a video released Sunday, the New York Giants became the first NFL team to publicly endorse the You Can Play Project, which aims to end homophobia in sports.

The Giants Foundation also provided a grant to the project, and the team will host a You Can Play tailgate and game day event Dec. 20 when the Carolina Panthers visit New York.

PrintThe video, released just before the team’s big win over the Dallas Cowboys, features six current Giants players: cornerback Prince Amakumara, kicker Josh Brown, defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins, wide receiver Victor Cruz, offensive lineman Weston Richburg and running back Shane Vereen. But the effort reportedly was spearheaded by Hall of Fame linebacker Harry Carson, who also appears in the video.

From the You Can Play Project:

The video showcases Carson and the current giants speaking about opportunity for all athletes to be “judged only by their talent, character and work ethic.”

“You Can Play is proud to receive the Giants’ tremendous show of support,” said Wade Davis, You Can Play’s executive director and a former NFL player. “The entire Giants organization has committed to inclusion for all, including LGBT athletes and fans. The vocal support of alumni like Harry Carson, the Giants’ front office staff, and current players sends a giant message to all sports fans, especially young fans, everywhere.  We are thrilled that the Giants are leading the charge in the NFL for LGBT inclusion.”

Jim Buzinski at OutSports notes that the video doesn’t include the words “gay,” “LGBT” or “homophobia,” so those unfamiliar with the You Can Play Project may not know what it means.

“Still, it’s great that the Giants have stepped up and let’s hope more NFL teams follow suit,” Buzinski writes.

The Giants were heavily criticized in 2014 for hiring former wide receiver David Tyree as director of player development. Tyree, famous for the miracle catch that helped the team win Super Bowl XLII, campaigned against marriage equality in New York in 2011 and publicly advocated “ex-gay” therapy. However, Tyree later reportedly reversed his stance on gay rights.

Watch the Giants’ You Can Play video below. 

 

The post WATCH: New York Giants Become First NFL Team To Tackle Homophobia In Sports appeared first on Towleroad.


John Wright

WATCH: New York Giants Become First NFL Team To Tackle Homophobia In Sports

Open Question: How bad is Hilary when even the LGBT community call her out for lying for political purposes?

Open Question: How bad is Hilary when even the LGBT community call her out for lying for political purposes?
Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t the only one taking Hillary Clinton to task over her recent assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act was a “defensive” measure to prevent worse discrimination against LGBT people.

A number of gay rights activists took to Twitter to say Clinton engaged in historic revisionism during her appearance Friday on “The Rachel Maddow Show” when she said DOMA was a means to stop the enactment of a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage entirely. Many of those activists also tempered their objections by saying Clinton is generally doing right on LGBT rights during her campaign.

www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/25/gay-activists-unhappy-with-clinton-remarks-on-doma/ When Hillary supporters catch her in a lie, they call is ‘historic revisionism’ lol

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20151026043620AAWDe31

Are Gay Networking Events Still Relevant?

Are Gay Networking Events Still Relevant?

Out in Tech. Out Professionals. Lesbians Who Tech. The National Gay and Lesbian Journalism Association. There are dozens of LGBT business and social networking organizations, but do we still need them now that we’ve made great strives in LGBT equality? And are people using these organizations to get jobs or relationships?

I went to my first NGLJA mixer several years ago with two gay friends who, like myself, work in television news. Admittedly, I had only one goal: find a gal to date. Those hopes were quickly dashed when I realized I was the only woman there.

Girl did not meet girl, but I had fun and met wonderful gay men who have helped me throughout the years. 

I found the same issue at Out in Tech. At one mixer I went to, while there were at least 150 men; there were less than a dozen women

The outnumbering of men to women at professional functions isn’t new to queer women. That’s part of the reason Leanne Pittsford founded Lesbians Who Tech. 

The group recently held its first New York summit, where I had the honor of giving an Ignite speech: “What I’ve Learned as a One-Man Band Reporter.” A few of my friends also went to the summit. Some to network, others to date. Pittsford isn’t surprised. 

“I think every professional setting can have an element of a personal setting whether it’s dating or a friendship,” she says. 

Patrick Henderson, president of the New York chapter of NGLJA, agrees. 

“Organizations are always an opportunity to meet people with similar interests and lifestyles, so sometimes dating and relationships form organically from nonromantic relationships built though NLGJA or other professional organizations.”

Dating aside, are these groups still needed? We have marriage equality, more representation in the media, and many of us don’t feel the need to hide our sexuality or gender identity anymore. 

Pittsford says they are still needed, especially ones that focus on what she calls “diversity within diversity.”

“Most lesbians, queer women, identity with being a woman first,” she says. 

That’s true. I identify first as black, then as a woman, then as a lesbian. Yet when I go to some of these events, I am one of only a few women or a few black people.  

If I were married, my household would face problems different than two married white men. If my partner were white, she would make 78 cents to their dollar, and I as a black female would make only 64 cents, if we follow statistical averages. (If my partner were Hispanic, she would make 54 cents.) 

Pittsford says women in technology are still underrepresented. There is still a lack of women in leadership positions in many companies. And with all the whitewashed TV shows, commercials, and movies, it’s easy to see there are not enough people of color involved in producing or writing them. This underrepresentation trickles down to networking events. 

“LGBT groups are predominantly male,” Pittsford says. “Everything from the organizational makeup to the leadership team.”

But can we change that? 

“If you want to create a community, you have to start with leadership,” Pittsford says. “If you don’t have leadership that reflects the community you are trying to reach, you’re never going to have that type of representation.”

Henderson says he realizes NGLJA is not as diverse as it could be and that’s something he’s trying to change in his chapter. He says while the education events have a diverse crowd, the mixers are predominately male

“The mixers we’ve held in the past were held at gay bars in the city, which left many women feeling like they didn’t belong. When we did have women attend, they felt out of place being one of the few women in the room.” 

He says this is why the mixers were moved to the Stonewall Inn, which has a historical significance for all LGBTQ people.

I have noticed more women at the mixers at Stonewall, so that is definitely a start. But what about the lack of people of color? That is something both Pittsford and Henderson noticed and something they say they are both working on. 

Maybe the question isn’t whether LGBT professional organizations are still relevant, but how they can be more relevant. The answer: Include more intersectional identities. 

How do we get this diversity within diversity? We can start by including ourselves. Ladies, let’s show up more. Go to events. Even if we are in a relationship and don’t see much reason to go out. Even if you’d rather stay home because you assume you’ll be the only woman.

Black, Latino, and Asian folks, I know it can be tiresome being the only person of color in the room, but go anyway. Show up. If you have a bad time, try again. Reach out to the organizers and tell them your thoughts. And group organizers, if you look around the room and see that everyone looks like you, there is a problem. Figure out a way to get other people involved. 

When professional mixers are more diverse, we can stop asking ourselves whether they’re still relevant and look forward to the next one we’re invited to.

FEMI REDWOOD

FEMI REDWOOD is a New York–based journalist. Follow her on Twitter @femiredwood.

 

Femi Redwood

www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/10/26/are-gay-networking-events-still-relevant