Please enter your date of birth to proceed.
Top Chinese Sexologist Opens Up About Her Trans Partner
Li Yinhe explains loving her trans male partner is not a radical act, but talking about it is.
Mitch Kellaway
www.advocate.com/health/love-and-sex/2015/01/03/top-chinese-sexologist-opens-about-her-trans-partner
Marriage Equality Is a National Issue, And So the Time Has Come for Our National Court to Address It
The Supreme Court has been reluctant to jump into the question of same-sex marriage, preferring to let the issue percolate through state-by-state litigation in the lower federal courts. But the time has come for the justices to come out of hiding. The denial of marriage equality is a national problem, not a state-level problem, and it requires a national resolution that only our nation’s constitutional court can provide.
At the moment, 35 states allow marriage equality, while 15 forbid it. The anti-equality states not only refuse to allow same-sex marriages to be licensed and celebrated; 14 of them also refuse to recognize marriages from sister states where such unions are perfectly legal. Petitions from cases in four of those states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee – will be considered by the justices at their next private conference this coming Friday.
One reason marriage equality is a national issue is that our current patchwork of marriage laws imposes unreasonable, indeed absurd, burdens on same-sex couples’ security in their marriages and their freedom to move from state to state. A married gay couple from a pro-equality state can relocate for job, education or family reasons to an anti-equality state – as long as they’re willing to give up their marriage, and perhaps even their property and parental rights. A rational legal regime cannot tolerate this state of affairs.
In a 2012 article in the Michigan Law Review, I first proposed that the Constitution provides not only a right to get married, but a right to remain married. Multiple federal court decisions, including one from the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals involving Utah’s marriage laws, have since endorsed this principle. There is also an argument to be made that denial of interstate marriage recognition offends the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Aside from the harms they inflict on couples, inconsistent state marriage laws also cost American businesses $1.3 billion per year, according to a study released in October by the consulting group Marsh and McLennan Companies. “As marriage confers a host of legal and social privileges,” the report explains, “the irregular landscape generates a host of administrative and compliance requirements for employers.”
A patchwork of marriage laws also means a tax penalty for employers and employees in states without the freedom to marry, because the value of spousal health insurance and other benefits for an employee in a same-sex household is treated as ordinary income, triggering additional payroll and income taxes. “As many corporate leaders now view national freedom to marry as inevitable,” the Marsh and McLennan report observes, “they would prefer that this tax and compliance burden disappear sooner rather than later.”
There is another important reason why marriage equality should be settled at the national level: that is where the campaign to ban it has always been fought.
Although same-sex marriage was not possible in the United States until a decade ago, affirmative and categorical prohibitions are a relatively recent phenomenon. The first state constitutional amendments banning marriage equality were not passed until 1998, when voters in Alaska and Hawaii approved measures effectively overturning state court rulings favorable to marriage equality. By 2008, only 10 years later, more than 30 states had approved such measures.
Aside from the harms they impose, I have argued that the process that was used to enact these measures raises serious constitutional concerns. It is fanciful to believe that these laws were the products of carefully considered, historically validated, independent policy decisions by each state, and thus worthy of deference as a matter of federalism. For the most part these laws were, in fact, products of a determined, nationwide blitzkrieg by religious conservative activists and Republican operatives. In the 2004 elections, President George W. Bush’s strategist Karl Rove helped oversee efforts that saw 11 anti-marriage equality measures approved in one swoop. James Dobson, founder of the once-powerful group Focus on the Family, called the nationwide fight against gay marriage “our D-Day, or Gettysburg or Stalingrad.”
The campaign was one of classic backlash: it sought to exploit short-term public passions and prejudices to slam the door on marriage equality just as a national debate was starting to emerge on the issue. As CNN’s report the day after the 2004 elections described it, “Six months after gay and lesbian couples won the right to marry in Massachusetts, opponents of same-sex marriage struck back” with amendments in 11 states “codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.”
Experience demonstrates that when Americans learn more about gay people and their relationships, they become more likely to support marriage equality. Even while marriage equality opponents were still enjoying success at the voting booth, attitudes were evolving: between 1998 and 2009, the average vote against mini-DOMAs in statewide referenda increased from 31 percent to 46 percent.
If the remaining marriage bans took the form of ordinary statutes that could be revisited by legislatures in light of the growing majority support for same-sex marriage, there might be less reason for the Supreme Court to act right now. But all 15 remaining bans are in the form of state constitutional amendments, which are much harder to undo because they typically require legislative supermajorities, votes in multiple legislative sessions, and/or statewide voter referenda.
This emphasis on constitutional amendments also was a deliberate strategy pursued at the national level by anti-gay-marriage activists. The goal was not merely to enact laws that appealed to lawmakers and voters at the time, but to place the question of same-sex marriage beyond democratic debate and the ordinary lawmaking process – that is, persuading a simple majority of your elected representatives, the way most laws are made or repealed – in as many states as possible, for as long as possible. The spirit of these efforts was captured by a Georgia Republican politician who urged his state to adopt a constitutional amendment because it would “set in stone that marriage in this country is a union between one man and one woman. The laws of man did not create marriage; the laws of man should not alter marriage.”
The campaign against same-sex marriage has seen its fortunes dramatically reversed in the past few years. Many Americans who once opposed gay marriage have, with better information and greater reflection, changed their minds. It is an important principle of the Supreme Court’s equality jurisprudence that courts should not intervene in such matters too hastily, because “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions” by lawmakers or voters can “eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” But in the 15 states where anti-equality laws remain, they are embedded in state constitutions, and the ordinary democratic lawmaking process cannot address them.
And so the time has come for the Supreme Court to step in. The campaign against marriage equality was mapped and executed at the national level, and it continues to impose harms and indignities on individuals and businesses that reverberate across state boundaries. The validity of such laws should be weighed and ruled upon by the justices whose responsibility it is to interpret and apply our highest national law, the Constitution.
Luxembourg Begins Same-sex Legal Weddings
The small, wealthy European nation joins Scotland and Florida in welcoming in the new year with marriage equality.
Thom Senzee
www.advocate.com/world/2015/01/03/luxembourg-begins-same-sex-legal-weddings
Idaho Governor And Attorney General File File Petitions to Supreme Court Hoping to Stop Gay Marriages
Idaho Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden have both submitted petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of challenging same-sex marriage’s legality in the state. Though the petitions were filed separately, both argue that gay marriage in Idaho could have far reaching consequences that affect other states.
In the past Governor Otter has made clear his intentions to continuously fight against Idaho’s steady progress towards equality, even if it means wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. Otter’s petition, which was filed earlier this week, argues that Idaho’s situation is unique from those of other states because of the couples responsible for initially challenging the state’s ban on gay marriage.
Two of the four lesbians involved in the challenge, Otter points out, were married out of state and seeking to have their marriage recognized. Otter’s petition also falls back on the widely discredited idea that children thrive better under the care of opposite-sex parents.
“It is important that at least one of the cases this court considers on the merits be a case in which the traditional definition of marriage has been defended with the most robust defense available,” wrote Gene Schaerr, one of Utah’s lead legal advisors in its fight against gay marriage. “This is that case.”
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s petition fell back upon the idea that the reversal of Idaho’s ban was a governmental incursion against state’s rights.
“This case presents the Court with the opportunity to resolve a divisive split on a question of nationwide importance,” he explained in the petition. “Whether the United States Constitution now prohibits states from maintaining the traditional definition of civil marriage, i.e., between one man and one woman.”
Charles Pulliam-Moore
Dallas County Adding Family Medical Leave For Gay Employees To 'Promote Stronger Families'
Two years ago, when Dallas County, Texas, added same-sex insurance benefits, the proposal was controversial.
Ditto for the county’s 2011 decision to add transgender nondiscrimination protections.
But Dallas County’s most recent pro-LGBT proposal, which would extend family medical leave to the partners of gay employees, has generated zero opposition.
The Dallas County Commissioners Court, which first discussed the family medical leave proposal last month, is expected to approve it later this month or early next month. The measure would get around Texas’ same-sex marriage ban by allowing all employees to designate a nonrelative as a designated care recipient — and take unpaid leave to care for that person without risking their jobs.
From The Dallas Morning News:
“A policy like this is important,” said Rafael McDonnell, a local gay rights activist who proposed the change to county leaders. “This allows county employees to never have to make a choice between the families they love and the jobs they are hired to do.” …
McDonnell said he approached County Judge Clay Jenkins (right) and Commissioner Elba Garcia about implementing the change at the county level shortly after the city of Dallas passed a similar rule.
“Broadening the categories of loved ones for which employees can use family leave promotes stronger families and a stronger community,” Jenkins said.
The city of Dallas added family medical leave for gay employees last year, but The Morning News notes that same-sex benefits are less common at the county level in Texas, ostensibly due to more conservative voters in suburban areas. Other counties that have extended at least some benefits to gay employees include Bexar County (San Antonio), El Paso County and Travis County (Austin).
Of course, the issue of equal benefits for government employees will become moot if and when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in the Texas marriage case on Jan. 9.
But at the very least, assuming they approve the proposal, Dallas County commissioners will be able to say they were on the right side of history.
John Wright
Man With 2 Penises Tells All In New Memoir
In early 2014, a man who said he has two functioning penises due to a rare congenital condition known as diphallia “came out” in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything.” A year later, he’s written an e-memoir.
This man, who identifies as bisexual and goes by Diphallic Dude or DoubleDickDude (DDD), is using his memoir, titled Double Header: My Life With Two Penises, to answer more questions, describe his struggles and tell tales of many sexual encounters.
“I realized that there are still people who are genuinely curious,” he told Rolling Stone. “From girls who want to know how to handle their boyfriend being uncircumcised [as DDD is] to guys wanting to know if they’re gay or bisexual because my equipment turned them on.”
“Really, it just stuns me almost a year later that people are still reaching out to me,” he said. “So I thought I should put a book together and use that to answer questions, but also give voice to people who might feel lost in the cracks.”
Last year, DDD provided Redditors with everything from very graphic images to the details of having sex with two penises. He now has popular, very NSFW Twitter and Tumblr accounts.
“I still have the same life and still do the same things,” DDD said of his Internet fame. “I’m just now more aware that the guy or girl standing next to me at the grocery store might have seen my penises. That is the big difference.”
For more on DDD’s memoir, read Rolling Stone’s interview.
FCC to Vote on Net Neutrality Next Month
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote next month on net neutrality rules, The Washington Post reports:
President Obama’s top telecom regulator, Tom Wheeler, told fellow FCC commissioners before the Christmas holiday that he intends to circulate a draft proposal internally next month with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later, said one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agency’s deliberations are ongoing. The rules are meant to keep broadband providers such as Verizon and Comcast from speeding up or slowing down some Web sites compared to others.
The AP adds:
President Barack Obama has asked the FCC to put Internet service providers under the same rules as those imposed on telephone companies 80 years ago. The aim is to protect net neutrality, the concept that everyone with an Internet connection should have equal access to all legal content online, including video, music, email, photos, social networks and maps.
The outcome could affect the prices consumers pay for access to entertainment, news and other online content.
For a handy primer on the topic and what’s at stake, you can’t go wrong with John Oliver’s brilliant segment on net neutrality, or as Ted Cruz calls it “Obamacare for the internet”.
Kyler Geoffroy
www.towleroad.com/2015/01/fcc-to-vote-on-net-neutrality-next-month.html
As Transgender Teen Leelah Alcorn Is Laid To Rest, Her Death Begins To 'Mean Something' – VIDEO
Transgender suicide victim Leelah Alcorn (below right) was laid to rest Friday morning in a private service, after her family moved the funeral in response to alleged threats, according to a report from NBC News:
Tim Tripp, the family minister at Northeast Church of Christ in Cincinnati, told NBC News the funeral had been moved to a private location because “the times and dates had been publicized, and the family’s received threats.” Tripp wouldn’t specify what threats surrounded the funeral, other than to say the family had heard there would be “disruptions.” Mourners arriving at the church Friday found a sign on the door announcing the service’s postponement. Jeff Hartmann, of Hodapp Funeral Home, said the private service was held there Friday morning. He said Alcorn’s body was to be cremated.
Meanwhile, the LGBT community and its supporters honored Alcorn at candlelight vigils in Cleveland, Columbus (above) and other cities on Friday night. Additional vigils are planned outside Alcorn’s former school today, and as far away as Orlando and London.
A petition launched in the wake of Alcorn’s suicide calling for a federal ban on transgender conversion therapy has garnered more than 240,000 signatures. Another petition calling for Alcorn’s correct name to be placed on her headstone has garnered more than 70,000 signatures.
As we reported, Leelah’s mother, Carla Alcorn, told CNN she’d never heard her daughter’s chosen name prior to her suicide. But that isn’t surprising given that Leelah’s parents likely would have used the name as another reason to punish their daughter, since they didn’t support her gender identity due to their religious beliefs.
WCPO-TV reported Thursday night that Leelah’s father, Doug, sent the station an email in which he continued to misgender his daughter and use her birth name:
WCPO has made several attempts to speak with her parents at their Kings Mills home.
After an attempt Thursday, the girl’s father, Doug, sent WCPO an email with the subject line: “Joshua Alcorn and your visit this morning.”
Doug Alcorn’s message reads in part:
“We love our son, Joshua, very much and are devastated by his death. We have no desire to enter into a political storm or debate with people who did not know him. We wish to grieve in private. We harbor no ill will towards anyone. … I simply do not wish our words to be used against us.”
Needless to say, it’s a little late for that, but actions speak louder than words, and Leelah’s parents’ actions as described in her Tumblr post were largely confirmed by her mother’s statements to CNN.
Not surprisingly, the original Tumblr post itself has been removed, but you can find an archive of it here, and the unprecedented national media coverage of Leelah’s suicide continues, with some advocates calling her death the transgender community’s “Matthew Shepard moment.”
Watch GLAAD spokesman Tiq Milan discuss the tragedy on MSNBC, as well as WCPO’s report on Leelah’s father’s statement, AFTER THE JUMP …
John Wright
PHOTOS: Did Straight Dudes Rule Broadway in 2014?
From Hugh Jackman to Daniel Radcliffe, Hollywood’s hottest male stars did straight plays — and dazzled gay theatergoers.
Brandon Voss
www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/theater/2015/01/03/photos-did-straight-dudes-rule-broadway-2014
You must be 18 years old or older to chat
