• DADT Soldiers. Lt. Dan Choi [1] and Jim Pietrangelo [2] were arrested yesterday after handcuffing themselves to the White House gates to protest the DADT. Following a rally to repeal DADT held by the Human Rights Campaign Lt. Choi and Pietrangelo marched with about 100 protesters to the White House. Choi charged the Obama administration with not doing enough. "You've been told that the White House has a plan. But we learned this week that the president is still not fully committed. ... Following this rally, I will be leading [the protest] to the White House to say 'enough talk.' ... I am still standing, I am still fighting, I am still speaking out, and I am still gay," he said. Choi is still in jail, reportedly without a phone call or representation. Queerty [3] has the hits and misses of yesterday's protest. March on! [4] • Fight Back New York Smackdown. Fight Back New York [5], the new political action committee pledging to target anti marriage equality foes in the New York State Senate, won its first victory Tuesday. In a special election Hiram Monserrate [6] was soundly defeated in his attempt to win back the seat he was removed from in February. Monserrate was convicted of the assault of his female companion prompting the NY State Senate to expel the senator in a first for the state since the 1920s. The Democratic winner, Jose R. Peralta was supported by unions, womens groups and my new favorite gay activist organization, Fight Back New York. The race was heated and oftentimes focused on marriage equality. Monserrate pandered to anti-gay [7] sentiments when his campaign distributed fliers siting Peralta's support from "a group of mega rich gay fanatics dedicated to destroying our way of life and creating same sex marriage." I am sure that dragging your female companion through a hallway that was caught by a security camera had nothing to do with it. One down, seven to go. Keep the fight up, New York! [8] • The Boy talks about the Lady. Boy George [9] talked with the Mirror in the U.K. about none other than Lady Gaga. In the interview he talks about the Telephone video, the circus that surrounds Gaga, her live appearances and Miss Gaga's request for him to sign her vagina. WHAT??? Check out the video where the talk of the Lady's private parts starts at  1:57. But my favorite quote is the Boy's reaction to the Telephone video. After watching it he tweeted "Prison's not exactly like this." Now, I wonder how he knows? [10] • I kissed a boy and I liked it. Wednesday night on Ugly Betty, Justin received his first gay kiss. I must say high school sure has changed since I was there. And come to think of it, so has television. I wonder what the right wing must be saying. Perez Hilton [11] has the clip. I think it's so sweet and awkward. Just the way I remember high school, ha. I hope many little gay theater boys are emboldened to kiss their crushes. Whoever said theater would get you nowhere? [12] • How do you spell oops? I am a huge fan of tattoos [13]. I have many, myself. I ran across this link from our friends at World of Wonder [14]. There is nothing better than thinking you have the coolest tattoo and then finding out that the words you permanently wanted to present to the world are misspelled. I have one word of advice before you get inked with words...PROOFREAD! [15] [1] http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/18/Dan_Choi_Protests_in_Front_of_WH/ [2] http://gay.americablog.com/ [3] http://www.queerty.com/heres-what-lt-dan-choi-robin-mcgehee-did-completely-right-and-what-went-horribly-wrong-20100318/ [4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-dan-choi-jim-pietrangelo-white-house-protest-detail.jpg [5] http://fightbackpac.com/ [6] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/nyregion/17hiram.htm [7] http://features.outinamerica.com/2010/03/09/hiram-monserrates-anti-gay-flyers/ [8] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-fight-back-new-york-pac-logo-detail.jpg [9] http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/03/17/boy-what-a-gaga-request-115875-22116685/ [10] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-boy-george-lady-gaga-detail.jpg [11] http://perezhilton.com/2010-03-18-teenage-boys-share-gay-kiss-on-ugly-betty [12] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-ugly-betty-teen-gay-kiss-detail.jpg [13] http://oddee.com/item_96504.aspx [14] http://worldofwonder.net/ [15] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-misspelled-tattoo-detail.jpg

(The Hague, Netherlands) The Dutch prime minister Friday denounced as "irresponsible" a claim by a retired U.S. general that gay Dutch soldiers were partly to blame for allowing Europe's worst massacre since World War II. Dutch officials, from the Cabinet to the military, were outraged by retired Gen. John Sheehan's remarks at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Sheehan claimed that Dutch military leaders had called the presence of gay soldiers in the army "part of the problem" that allowed Serb forces to overrun the Srebrenica enclave in Bosnia in July 1995 and kill some 8,000 Muslim men. Dutch troops were serving in the undermanned U.N. peacekeeping force in Srebrenica when they were overrun by heavily armed Serb forces, who went on to turn the surrounding countryside into killing fields littered with mass graves. Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende called Sheehan's comments irresponsible and said at his weekly news conference that "these remarks should never have been made." "Toward Dutch troops - homosexual or heterosexual - it is way off the mark to talk like that about people and the work they do under very difficult circumstances," he said. Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military 1997, was speaking in opposition to a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. Balkenende said he would not take up the issue with President Barack Obama because Sheehan is already retired. Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop called Sheehan's claim "damaging" and not worthy of a soldier. "I don't want to waste any more words on it," he said. Gen. Henk van den Breemen, Dutch chief of staff at the time of the Srebrenica genocide, called Sheehan's comments "total nonsense" and denied ever having suggested gays in the army might have played a role in the Srebrenica massacre. The Netherlands has a long history of accepting homosexuality, and gays have long been welcome in the country's armed forces - which also allow labor unions. The leader of one such union, Jan Kleian, was incensed by Sheehan's comments. "The man is crazy," he told Dutch radio. "It sounds hard, but I can't put it any other way."

It is sometimes said, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” Which may be why the recent Colorado story about Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish School, which expelled two pre-schoolers because their parents are lesbians, saddens me. Although I’m now an atheist, I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools for a good chunk of my life. There’s much about that experience that I still value. Thus (unlike many commentators on this story) I “get” why lesbians would want to send their children to a Catholic school in the first place. The rich intellectual and moral tradition, the emphasis on fundamentals—these are valuable things, and they’re often hard to find in public schools. That’s not to say that Catholic schools are perfect, or that I’d send my own (entirely hypothetical) children there. But “perfect” is not usually an option when choosing schools—one chooses between better and worse. Besides, these parents are (unlike me) practicing Catholics. They don’t accept everything the Church teaches, but then neither do most Catholics: the U.S. Bishops themselves estimate that 96% of married Catholics use artificial contraception, for example. So while the parents’ choice is not one I would have made, it makes sense to me given their overall belief set and the available options. So, too, does the decision of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish School to expel the children. Before you conclude that The Gay Moralist has gone mad, hear me out. To say that the decision “makes sense” is not to say that it was the morally correct decision. It wasn’t—not by a long shot. Nor is it to say that the decision was logically consistent with other stances the Church has taken. Quite the contrary. Indeed, if you’ve got a few minutes, check out Fox News heavyweight Bill O’Reilly pressing Father Jonathan Morris [1]on this point.  O’Reilly, to his credit, sides against the school, while Father Morris flails about and dodges the consistency question. So does Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput. In his column he writes: “Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families.  These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.” Key question that Morris and Chaput and the rest keep avoiding: How is it that lesbian parents offer counter-witness in the way that Muslim parents, or Jewish parents, or divorced parents do not? (Note that by all accounts the lesbians were not what one would call “activists”—the story actually broke because outraged school faculty reported it to news outlets.) The Church’s official teaching on divorce is the same as that of Jesus—namely, that those who divorce and remarry are engaging in an ongoing adulterous affair. And Muslims and Jews both deny the divinity of Christ, which is a pretty damn important part of the Catholic faith. So much for consistency. So if the decision was immoral and inconsistent, in what possible way does it “make sense”? For an answer, go back to the issues commonly raised to press the consistency point: interfaith marriage, contraception, and divorce. Look at the history of the Church and society on these issues. There was a time, not very long ago, when the Roman Catholic Church quite vocally proclaimed its identity at the One True Faith. That’s still the official position, though you’d never know it by the Church’s ecumenical tone. The reason for the shift is simple: the more Catholics got to know and love non-Catholics, the less palatable they found the doctrine that their friends were all going to hell. So the Church softened its tone. Or take contraception, once scandalous, now used by the vast majority of Catholics, who understand it for what it is—a tool for responsible family planning. The more Catholics realized this, the less palatable they found the Church’s anti-contraception teaching. So the Church softened its tone. And then there’s divorce, not a desirable thing generally, but sometimes the best available option. Can we really treat the nice couple next-door, one of whom was previously married, as flagrant adulterers? Of course we can’t. So the Church softened its tone—and stepped up the issuing of annulments, yet another tactic for preserving the appearance of consistency. You can see where I’m going with this. The more a practice becomes normalized, the harder it is for the Church to maintain its condemnation without looking hopelessly archaic. It’s already lost on interfaith marriage, contraception, and divorce. It is desperately trying to stem the inevitable tide on homosexuality. Then along comes a nice lesbian couple, loved by the parish community, who do what nice Catholic parents do—enroll their children in the local parish school. So nice! So normal! So…threatening. Threatening, that is, to make the Church look as archaic on this issue as it already does on the others. So Church officials draw a line in the sand. Given their overall belief system, it makes sense. But it was still the wrong thing to do. *********** John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com. For more about John Corvino, visit www.johncorvino.com. [2] [1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-oreilly-defends-lesbian-couples-children-in-catholic-school-controversy/ [2] http://www.johncorvino.com.

(Fresno, Calif.) A Fresno City College science instructor violated a campus anti-discrimination policy when he told students that homosexuality is a mental disorder that should be treated with psychotherapy, campus administrators have concluded. Christopher Villa, vice president of student services, reported the findings last week in a letter to three students who had lodged complaints against health sciences instructor Bradley Lopez. The campus' student newspaper published Villa's letter Wednesday. "Dr. Lopez engaged in conduct that could result in the creation of a hostile learning environment by unreasonably interfering with students' learning by making insulting comments directed at homosexuals," Villa wrote. He added that while instructors are free to offer opinions that may offend students or be at odds with other professionals, Lopez crossed the line by making statements "unrelated to any legitimate course objective." Lopez's lawyer, Charles Magill, said that only one of the three complaining students was enrolled in Lopez' class and she had misinterpreted his remarks. "It has been blown out of proportion dramatically," Magill said. "Academic freedom means professors say things that are offensive sometimes, and critical thinking means you say things to kids that are challenging sometimes." In his letter to the students, Villa said Lopez also ran afoul of campus regulations prohibiting religious indoctrination "by assigning readings from the Bible, reading the Bible in class, and otherwise relying on the Bible as an authority in the assigned subject matter." The finding came in response to student allegations that Lopez last semester quoted the Bible as proof that human life begins at conception, assigned his class to research the Bible for Jesus' genetic makeup, and discussed apocalyptic Christian prophesies during a lesson on climate change. "Instructors are not required to hide their own religious belief or non-belief, but they may not engage in religious indoctrination as Dr. Lopez did here" because Fresno City College is a public school, Villa said. Villa wrote that the college "will take appropriate action" to address the violations but did not elaborate. Magill said he expects the school to put a letter of reprimand in Lopez's personnel file, a move Lopez would challenge through an administrative appeal. During a hearing last month, Lopez "denied that he did anything wrong, he denied that he was teaching from the Bible," Magill said. The three students brought formal complaints against Lopez in December, but their concerns became public after the American Civil Liberties Union contacted Fresno City College's president demanding a response.

[1] The call for an end to the gender binary is not new. Sure, it's gaining momentum slowly and there are many who have yet to really grapple with the intellectual concept of an individual who is neither male nor female. Some refer to it as the trans community. But Norrie May-Welby [2] of Australia, calls herself a neuter. This wouldn't be so incredible except that Australia is calling her a neuter, too. Officially. For the first time, an individual has eschewed gender identity and legally become a person without a gender. What is interesting about May-Welby's path is that she has not created a new gender. Her project is one of establishing a lack of gender. Instead of creating a "T" category on her license, she has specifically called herself "neuter." For some, this is a victory. It is a chance to operate without the gender norms created all around us. However, I wonder how accurate the category is. Trans denotes a state of flux, an inbetween. And for many, gender is something they perform differently each day, each hour even. There is a fluidity and chance to move from female-ness to male-ness and then something that takes pieces of both. It is a play within and around the established gender concepts. May-Welby has taken herself out of the gender conversation altogether. It is a radical move. Maybe one that we need in this world to truly open up gender norms to everyone. But it is certainly a break from how many have challenged the binary to date. What do you think? Should neutral replace trans? Are they similar or the same? Do we need to do away with the gender discussion before we can start playing with the norms that exist? [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/blog-norrie-top.jpg [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/norrie-may-welby-the-worl_n_502851.html?just_reloaded=1

GetEqual says that Dan Choi is being held without being allowed a phone call, after being arrested outside the White House yesterday afternoon. Everyone else arrested with Choi was released. From AmericaBlog [1] last night: Dan's representative just called the DC Central Cellblock, where Dan and James are being held. I'm told it's a nasty place. They report that they're not giving Dan a phone call. So he doesn't get bail. He's reportedly going to see a judge tomorrow. Something is going on. Protests TODAY, Friday, March 19: NYC protest from QueerRising [2] Times Square Military Recruitment Office 12 p.m.-2 p.m. Orlando protest [3] Senator Bill Nelson's Office Orlando Landmark Two 225 East Robinson Street, Ste 410 Orlando, Florida 32801 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. Let us know in the comments if there are others..... [1] http://gay.americablog.com/2010/03/where-is-dan-choi.html [2] http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=373820129097&ref=mf [3] http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=109946805682966&ref=ts

(Washington) A retired U.S. general says Dutch troops failed to defend against the 1995 genocide in the Bosnian war because the army was weakened, partly because it included openly gay soldiers. The comment by John Sheehan, a former NATO commander who retired from the military in 1997, shocked some at a Senate Armed Services Committee, where Sheehan spoke in opposition to a proposal to allow gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin told Sheehan he was "totally off-target." A Dutch defense ministry spokesman dismissed Sheehan's remarks as nonsense. Britain, Canada, Australia and Israel as well as the Netherlands allow gays to serve openly. Sheehan said European militaries deteriorated after the collapse of the Soviet Union and focused on peacekeeping because "they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back." Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and other nations believed there was no longer a need for an active combat capability in the militaries, he said. "They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military - that includes the unionization of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality." Dutch troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers and tasked with defending the town of Srebrenica in 1995 were an example of a force that became ill-equipped for war. "The battalion was understrength, poorly led, and the Serbs came into town, handcuffed the soldiers to the telephone poles, marched the Muslims off, and executed them," Sheehan said. "That was the largest massacre in Europe since World War II," he said of the killing of some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim boys and men after Serbian forces captured the town. Levin, D-Mich., appeared incredulous. "Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?" he asked. "Yes," Sheehan said. "They included that as part of the problem." He said the former chief of staff of the Dutch army had told him. Levin said it may be the case that some militaries have focused on peacekeeping to the detriment of their war-fighting skills. "But I think that any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals, or did allow homosexuals, I think is totally off-target," said Levin, a proponent of ending restrictions on gays serving in the U.S. armed forces. "The Dutch military, as you point out, were peacekeepers and not peace-enforcers. I agree with that," said Levin. "But what the heck that has to do with the issue before us is what mystifies me." Dutch defense ministry spokesman Roger Van de Wetering said in a telephone interview that he finds it "unbelievable that a man of this rank is stating this nonsense." "The whole operation in Srebrenica and the drama that took place over there was thoroughly investigated by Dutch and international authorities and none of these investigations has ever concluded or suggested a link between homosexual military personnel and the things that happened over there. I do not know on what facts this is based, but for us it is total nonsense," Van de Wetering said. On the Dutch attitude to gays in the military, he said: "For us it is very simple. Every man or woman that meets the criteria physically and mentally is welcome to serve in our armed forces regardless of (religious) belief, sexual preference or whatever."

[1] Please take this advice: put down that tasty beverage before you continue. If you have children and don't won't their ears assaulted by you cussing, send them outdoors. You ready? Gen. John Sheehan [2], a former NATO commander,  said at a Senate DADT  hearing the Bosnia massacre was caused by gay Dutch soldiers. Stop cursing and don't blame me for the coffee all over your computer screen. You were warned. The general's argument goes like this: when the Cold War ended  European military leaders decided "there was no longer a need for an active combat capability." This led to "open homosexuality" and the next step was "a focus on peacekeeping operations because they did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back." Quick translation: Nancy boy soldiers make a military weak. The retired  general said  he was told all of this by a former Netherlands army chief of staff.  Before moving on let's do some quick history. In 1995, Srebrenica was a UN safe haven, protected by 400 Dutch peacekeepers. Bosnian Serb forces attacked the town and massacred approximately 8,000 Muslim men and boys. It should come as no surprise officials from the Netherlands don't think much of Sheehan's history lesson. "It is astonishing that a man of his stature can utter such complete nonsense," Netherlands defense ministry spokesman Roger van de Wetering said. "The Srebrenica massacre and the involvement of UN soldiers was extensively investigated by the Netherlands, international organizations and the United Nations. Never was there in any way concluded that the sexual orientation of soldiers played a role." Blaming gay soldiers for a massacre? That's the tactic? Really? What's next? [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-military-buttons-top.jpg [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8575717.stm

From the Courage Campaign: Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign, and Cleve Jones, Senior Advisor to the Courage Campaign, released the following statement today supporting the actions of Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who were arrested today outside of the White House as they protested against the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: "Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo today demonstrated the growing frustration with the pace of change in Washington.  History shows us that nonviolent civil disobedience can be a very effective tactic in the struggle for social justice.  Lt. Choi is a friend of ours and of the Courage Campaign and we are proud of the action he took today."   UPDATE 6 pm CBS reports: The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing Thursday on repeal [of Don't Ask, Don't Tell]. Witnesses included Marine General John Sheehan and two officers who were discharged because of their sexual orientation.  According to reports, Choi crashed the rally, hosted by the gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign and comedian Kathy Griffin, and asked attendees to join him in a march to the White House, turning the event into more of a protest.  Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese did not march to the White House, in an illustration of the split in the gay rights movement between establishment organizations like the HRC, which generally support the Obama administration, and activists like Choi, who are pushing more aggressively for action. Also, Twitter reports say that Choi will spend the night in jail and will be in court tomorrow.

(Trenton, NJ) Gay couples who sued New Jersey for the right to marry once before are taking their case back to court. Six couples plus the surviving partner from a seventh filed a motion Thursday claiming the state continues to discriminate against them even though it offers civil unions to same-sex couples. The original suit, filed in 2002, resulted in a 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court decision that came one vote short of requiring the state to legalize gay matrimony. After an effort to get lawmakers to legalize gay marriage, the effort fizzled out. Opponents say that there's no constitutional right for gay couples to wed and that civil unions are working. Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Let me introduce myself. I’m a law professor [1], father of two (twin) girls in a committed (gay) relationship, and a blogger. On my site, WordinEdgewise [2], I discuss all manner of issues – some with a legal dimension, some not so much – in a way that I hope is of interest to a curious audience that includes lawyers and non-lawyers: in other words, everyone. In this column, I’ll concentrate on issues of particular concern to the LGBT community— mostly those with a legal dimension. I’m honored and excited to be writing a column that will appear here each Thursday. Please, let me know how you think I’m doing, what stories you’d like me to cover from a legal angle, and…whatever. Now:  today’s discussion. Consider this question: What kind of accommodation is needed between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws and values? In cases on either end of the spectrum, the answer is easy. Let’s take the issue of marriage equality. On one end of the spectrum, we all know that it isn’t enough for opponents to argue that religious teaching traditionally restricts marriage to the union of one man and one woman. First, some religious leaders support gay marriage. But there's also the more basic problem that in a secular state, we need a public, non-religious reason for denying basic equality. On the other end of the spectrum - as far as I know -  no one has argued that churches must directly violate their own central beliefs by marrying gay couples. And if they did, they’d be wrong. But most cases are in the complicated middle. Consider these two seemingly unrelated stories, both in the news: Two little girls are kicked out  of Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder, Colorado because their mothers are lesbians [3]. Meanwhile the school allows (non gay) divorcees, non-Catholics, and – as far as I can tell – just about anyone else to attend. (Try explaining that to a couple of little kids.) At Hastings College of the Law (a California state school), the Christian Legal Society bars non-believers and – yes! – gays and lesbians from becoming voting members, and then sues when the school won’t give the group official recognition or funding. The case has made its way to the Supreme Court, where oral arguments are to be held next month. If you want to keep yourself busy well into the summer, read the full set of briefs [4]that were filed (37, by my informal count). I’ve written before about the accommodation issue [5], when it has come up as a last stand by opponents. They say: If you’re going to grant marriage equality (which they hate), at least create a religious exemption for people of faith for whom gay unions are immoral, against church teaching, and so on. OK, but what should be the reach of that exemption? The same question comes up in these cases: How much accommodating should be done, if any? The first question to ask is whether the state even offers relevant anti-discrimination law. Alas, the Colorado pre-school case is easier than it should be, because the protection the state offers against sexual orientation discrimination mostly covers housing and employment. Even if it were broader, though, it probably wouldn’t help. The associational liberty and religious freedom of the church would likely prevail, although one could make a convincing case that the church’s religious freedom claim is convenient, not principled. After all, the school isn’t choosy about its students, except in this one instance. So a court might see the claims of association and liberty as a subterfuge for discrimination. (I doubt it, though, given how the Supreme Court rolled over and played dead in the Boy Scouts v. Dale case, where five Justices bought the Scouts’ every-changing justification for excluding gay scoutmasters.) But again, the law would have to be broader in the first place. Law isn’t everything, though. The lesbian parents’ courageous statement [6], reported earlier this week, was a great use of the publicity that the case has generated to make some really compelling points about basic fairness. Sometimes the law isn’t the best or only way to move the ball. In the Hastings case, the answer seems clear enough to me. I think that the law school has struck precisely the right balance between religious freedom and its commitment to non-discrimination. The Christian Legal Society requires members to subscribe to tenets that the law school found run counter to its anti-discrimination policy. Of particular interest, members must repudiate non-marital sex. (Even the Chess Club seems appealing by contrast.) Hastings regards this requirement as sexual orientation discrimination, since all sexual relations between two people of the same sex are “non-marital” according to the group. But the school is attempting to be reasonable, by letting the group meet on campus, allowing some use of school facilities to publicize their meetings, and so on. In other words, CLS’s right to association and speech has been protected. Hastings has drawn the line at funding and full recognition, though. It won’t lend its name to discrimination, no matter the justification. I’m optimistic that even this Supreme Court will see the wisdom in Hastings’ actions, but I’m not sure what odds I’d give. [1] http://law.widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/CulhaneJohnG.aspx [2] http://wordinedgewise.org [3] http://www.365gay.com/news/catholic-preschool-wont-let-student-return-because-of-lesbian-parents/ [4] http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1371_Petitioner.pdf [5] http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=278 [6] http://www.365gay.com/news/catholic-lesbian-parents-schools/

A small but significant portion of medical studies exclude gays from participating, sometimes without an apparent scientific reason, several cancer researchers say. In a letter in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, three scientists from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia cite several dozen studies requiring a participant to be "in a reciprocal relationship with a person of the opposite sex." There are legitimate scientific reasons for excluding gays from certain studies. Scientists would want only heterosexuals if they were studying how HIV spreads during male-female sex, for example. But the Fox Chase folks found cases where the reason for excluding gays is not clear: tests of a drug for attention-deficit disorder, a treatment for erection problems after prostate cancer surgery, and studies on sexual function related to diabetes, depression and benign enlargement of the prostate as men age. Brian Egleston, a biostatistician at Fox Chase, made the observation while overseeing enrollment of patients into clinical trials at the cancer center. "When I first saw this, I thought it was a fluke. The second time, I thought I'd dig deeper," he said. Egleston and Roland Dunbrack Jr., a biologist, and Dr. Michael J. Hall, a medical oncologist, did a spot check of a government database of thousands of studies and turned up more examples, most of them private-industry trials. Researchers seeking federal money for their work must explain why a study excludes a group based on gender, race or ethnicity, but no explanation is needed for exclusion based on sexual orientation, Egleston said. Exclusion can become self-perpetuating: Researchers designing a study often "cut and paste" participation criteria from earlier trials on a similar subject. "It becomes the way it's done," and any bias gets repeated, Egleston said. Estimates of how much of the U.S. population is gay or bisexual vary widely; some polls have put it around 4 percent.

(Los Angeles) The Episcopal Church has approved the election of a lesbian assistant bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles, making her the second openly gay bishop in the Anglican global fellowship, diocese officials said Wednesday. Episcopal conservatives were quick to criticize the approval of the Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore, who was elected last December, and said the move was "grieving the heart of God." [1] Still, Glasspool's victory underscored a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand. "I am ... aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people, in the name of Jesus Christ," Glasspool said in a printed statement. Glasspool and the Rev. Diane M. Jardine Bruce were elected in December to serve as assistant bishops, making them the first women bishops to serve in that diocese. Both, however, needed the full church's approval to be consecrated. Both are scheduled to be consecrated on May 15. The Episcopal Church, which is the Anglican body in the United States, caused an uproar in 2003 by consecrating the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Breakaway Episcopal conservatives have formed a rival church, the Anglican Church in North America. Several overseas Anglicans have been pressuring Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, to officially recognize the new conservative entity. In 2004, Anglican leaders asked the Episcopal Church for a moratorium on electing another gay bishop while they tried to prevent a permanent break in the fellowship. Since the request was made, some Episcopal gay priests have been nominated for bishop, but none was elected before Glasspool. In July 2009, the Episcopal General Convention, the U.S. church's top policy making body, affirmed that gay and lesbian priests were eligible to become bishops. Glasspool's approval shows that the Episcopal Church "creates no barrier for ministry on the basis of gender and sexual orientation, among other factors," Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno said in a statement. But some conservative Episcopalians were outspoken in their criticism Wednesday. In approving Glasspool, the Episcopal Church has "sought to embrace a way of life which the church through the Bible has always understood to be forbidden," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon of the traditional Diocese of South Carolina, which has voted to distance itself from the national church. "The tragic damage the Episcopal Church has recently caused the third largest Christian family in the world will continue into the future, hurting our collective witness and grieving the heart of God." Glasspool, 56, an adviser, or canon, for eight years to the Diocese of Maryland's bishop, said in an essay on the Los Angeles diocese Web site that she had an "intense struggle" while in college with her sexuality and the call to become a priest. "Did God hate me (since I was a homosexual), or did God love me?" she wrote. "Did I hate (or love) myself?" She said she met her partner, Becki Sander, while working in Massachusetts, and the two have been together since 1988. Bruce was most recently the rector of St. Clement's-By-The-Sea Episcopal Church in San Clemente, Calif. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/mary_glasspool_orig1-240x300.jpg

Logo Drama Club sauntered on over to hear the cast of Million Dollar Quartet rock out to a jam session this week, and we got to interview the rockers after the show. I felt like Kate Hudson in Almost Famous. One of the performers was Levi Kreis, out singer/songwriter and Logo Click List favorite, whom you may have heard of/desired physically. We discussed the true meaning of “great balls of fire,” and things got pretty heated. Seriously, there was major love tension. In addition to Levi Kreis, we had our video way with Robert Britton Lyons, Eddie Clendening, and Elizabeth Stanley who all appear as participants in the epic night the show depicts. Million Dollar Quartet is about a crazy day in 1956 when Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Johnny Cash all made magical music together. Also, some girl named Dyanne was there. For more info about the show, check out http://milliondollarquartetlive.com [1]. [1] http://milliondollarquartetlive.com

There's a pedophilia scandal and some kids in preschool. Guess who gets punished? The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c