Post #9 - The Generational Shift

An interesting article all around. Posted for your convenience.

The article is here: CLICK

USA TODAY
May 21st, 2009

Generations reshape gay marriage debate

WASHINGTON — The debate over same-sex marriage has become one of the country's most generational and regionally divided issues.

Trends suggest the contentious political struggle could fade in the not-too-distant future. The states where same-sex marriage is more tolerated are passing laws allowing it. Younger Americans, more eclectic in their views on social issues and more likely to have friends or family members who are openly gay, are more tolerant of same-sex couples than their parents or grandparents and appear to be more interested in compromise.

Over the last 22 years, attitudes about gay rights have changed significantly, especially among the religious, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Pew found that while support of gay marriage has fallen slightly since 2007 and a narrow majority of Americans still oppose it, those under age 29 are nearly twice as likely to favor same-sex marriage as those over 65 (43 to 24%). And the percentage of all Americans opposed to same-sex marriage has fallen 11 percentage points since 1996.

These findings are some of the more notable trends in Pew's comprehensive "Trends in political values and core attitudes: 1987-2009." Pew surveyed 3,013 adults in late March and early April. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: California | Barack Obama | Massachusetts | Connecticut | Iowa | New Hampshire | Maine | Vermont | East Coast of the United States

Pew found a growing detachment from the two major political parties, no ideological shift toward President Obama and the Democrats now in charge, less concern about social issues than in previous polls, and a rising wariness about the size and cost of government.

One of the most striking results came on the question of whether school boards should be able to fire gay teachers.

In 1987, 73% of white, evangelical Protestants said yes. Only 40% said so this year. There also were large drops among white mainline Protestants (50-25 percent) and white Catholics (42-21 percent) over the same period.

"Even though there has been little change in the number of Americans holding strong religious beliefs," Pew Research Center President Andrew Kohut said, "the percentage with conservative views on social values has been steadily declining over the past two decades."

Jonathan Merritt, 26, an evangelical activist, writer and son of former Southern Baptist Convention President James Merritt, portrays changing attitudes toward gay rights as part of a "broadening of the agenda" among younger evangelicals.

"Now evangelicals who are traditionally very conservative are quite concerned with environmental degradation and human rights and health care," said Merritt, who opposes same-sex marriage but favors "aggressive steps" to protect gay couples from discrimination.

A poll of 2,000 Americans taken last August by Faith in Public Life, a non-profit that promotes faith discussions in politics, found that support of gay marriage among evangelicals aged 18-34 had grown from 17% in 2006 to 24% last year.

"I think the momentum is in favor of redefining marriage in my generation," Merritt said. "I don't think this is an issue that my generation will fight over, at least not with the tenacity that the previous generations did."

But Merritt, citing surveys showing that younger Americans are actually less in favor of abortion rights than their parents or grandparents, says his generation is less likely to view all social issues through a "paradigm mentality" — where a view on one issue proscribes an automatic view on another.

Younger evangelicals, he said, are not softening their views on issues like gay rights over a "sense of rebellion," but as a result of new readings of Scripture and a rejection of old politics. That, he said, indicates attitudes will not change as his generation ages.

"What you are seeing," said Merritt, who also co-chairs a new faith-based group calling for eliminating nuclear weapons, "is not the emergence of the evangelical left. I think you are seeing the emergence of an evangelical stuck-in-the-middle."

Connecticut, Maine, Iowa and Massachusetts allow same-sex marriage. Vermont will follow in September. New Hampshire's state legislature is debating whether to become the sixth state to do so. California's Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage a year ago this month, but voters in November amended the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

It's no accident that much of the legislative activity is in the Northeast.

Pew found that 52% of Americans in the East — from the mid-Atlantic seaboard to Maine — favor gay marriage, and 65% are in support of civil unions, significantly higher than other regions, For instance, 26% of Southerners favor same-sex marriages, and 46% favor civil unions.

---
What do you think about this article? Did it seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie

Post #8 - Ads

Thanks for comments as usual. Two interesting articles, posted for your convenience.

First article is here: CLICK

Second article is here CLICK:

FIRST ARTICLE: OneNewsNow/American Family Association

Pepsi TV ad pushes gay lifestyle

A Pepsi ad running on television in the U.K. has further disappointed pro-family groups in America who see the U.S.-based company ramping up its promotion of homosexuality.
The ad for Pepsi Max, the company’s zero-calorie alternative to its regular Pepsi cola, features three young men talking at a table in a pub. Two are encouraging the third to go meet a shy girl who’s eyeing him from the bar.
The third man obviously doesn’t have the courage to introduce himself. So his friends hand him a Pepsi Max, and drinking it gives him the nerve. “Right,” he says after a swallow. “Let’s do this.”
The twist, however, is that instead of introducing himself to the shy girl at the bar – or a scantily-clad bimbo sitting behind her – the young man goes directly for a guy. His two friends are left speechless.
“This ad is one more reason we are boycotting this irresponsible company,” said AFA chairman Don Wildmon. “We have merely asked Pepsi to remain neutral on the very controversial issue of homosexuality. Pepsi has not only refused to do so, the company appears to have increased its efforts to become the ‘gay cola.’”
Wildmon said there could be little doubt that Pepsi is rejecting a traditional view of sexuality, marriage and family in favor of the radical homosexual agenda. The company gave $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest and most powerful gay lobbying group in America, and another $500,000 to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).
Both PFLAG and HRC are fervent supporters of same-sex marriage, with the latter group having given $2.3 million to oppose California’s Proposition 8, an initiative passed by voters in that state defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Pepsi also requires that its employees attend diversity training that normalizes homosexuality and transsexuality, which describes a sexual “orientation” in which one believes his/her biological sexuality does not match his/her true gender.
AFA has established a Web site with more information on the boycott of Pepsi: www.afa.net/boycottpepsico.com.
Wildmon said AFA was encouraging supporters to (1) watch the TV ad on the Boycott Pepsi Web site; (2) sign the online Boycott Pepsi Pledge; (3) print from the Web site and distribute the Boycott Pepsi Petition to family, friends, fellow church members and others; (4) join AFA’s cause on Facebook; and (5) contact Pepsi with the reasons for participating in the boycott – always remembering to be polite.


SECOND ARTICLE: The New York Times

Levi’s Adopts a Tie-In With a Gay Marriage Symbol

LEVI’S is getting in the spirit of the season by dressing its storefront mannequins in white. In Levi’s-owned stores in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, that means more than just marking the passing of Memorial Day, the traditional date to begin wearing white: in 20 stores, the mannequins’ white Levi’s jeans and shirts are adorned with White Knots, a symbol of solidarity with the same-sex marriage movement.

The symbol was made more timely by the California Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. Developed by Frank Voci, a digital media consultant, as a response to Proposition 8’s passage last November, the White Knot for Equality is a white ribbon tied in a knot.

It has been worn by the actress Anne Hathaway at President Obama’s Inauguration; Dustin Lance Black, the screenwriter of “Milk,” at the Oscars; and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, at a May 17 Manhattan rally supporting gay marriage. At the GLAAD Media Awards in Los Angeles in April, the comedian Kathy Griffin wore a bikini with a strategically placed White Knot.

With that kind of visibility and the online support among gays, lesbians and straight allies, the merchandising team at Levi’s was prompted to ask Mr. Voci if the company could use White Knots in its stores.

“Our design team was seeking something that would resonate beyond just fashion but also fit with our white product theme,” said Rene Holguin, senior vice president for global creative services for the Levi’s brand.

•

Levi Strauss & Company has a tradition of supporting equal rights for gays. Last fall, the San Francisco-based company filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court outlining the economic advantages of allowing same-sex couples to wed. The company has also signed on to sponsor a programming block on Logo, the gay cable channel owned by MTV Networks, and developed a marketing partnership with “Milk,” the Focus Features movie about Harvey Milk, the gay civil rights leader.

“We always try to connect to the energy and events of our time,” said Erica Archambault, Levi’s director of brand marketing and public relations. “What’s the pioneering spirit of today? A lot of people are rallying around marriage equality and fighting for that and so many individuals within our company feel so strongly about it.”

The Levi’s stores have no signs or conspicuous messages about the White Knot for Equality organization. Instead, the intent is to encourage customers to talk with employees, who have been briefed on the campaign. “We have weekly calls with our store managers and we sent out detailed information about the White Knot organization and also ways in which we’re supporting marriage equality over all as a company,” Ms. Archambault said.

The point, she said, is for sales staff “to be educated and able to have an informed conversation that’s more interactive than reading off a card or something.”

Mr. Voci said that he decided to create a symbol after seeing a number of rallies opposing the passage of Proposition 8. Inspired by the red ribbon for H.I.V./AIDS and the pink ribbon for breast cancer, he headed to a fabric store and began playing with white ribbon. “I was trying to figure out something different to do with it,” he recalled. “I tied it in a knot and thought, ‘Oh, tie the knot, like getting married.’ ”

“Everyone should have the right to tie the knot,” he said.

•

His eureka moment also led to the creation of a Web site, WhiteKnot.org. The owner of Voci Media Works, Mr. Voci advises companies like Living Proof, which makes hair- and skin-care products, on Internet strategies. He said he applied his knowledge to develop the WhiteKnot.org site. Volunteers have made thousands of White Knots, and the site features stories about their efforts.

Mr. Voci said he was not interested in turning the White Knot campaign into a major fund-raising operation. Instead, he said, he plans to support the efforts of established organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Marry.

Mr. Voci said he hoped that the White Knot could represent other initiatives promoting gay civil rights. “There’s a larger push for overall equal rights, the repeal of DOMA” — the Defense of Marriage Act — “the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the passage of a hate crimes bill and the end of workplace discrimination,” he said. “Marriage equality seems to be the headliner right now, but what we really want is comprehensive civil rights.”

Ricki Lake, the actress, has worn the White Knot to events. “It’s so simple and it says a lot,” she said. “It’s the same thing as the Lance Armstrong LiveStrong bracelet — that simple gesture that gets the word out.”

---
What do you think about these articles? Did they seem biased? How do you feel about the sources? Did they present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie

Post #7 - Prop 8 Upheld

Hello everyone. Thanks for your comments. This week's big news is that California's Proposition 8 was upheld by the court. Here are two articles posted for your convenience.

First article is here: CLICK

Second article is here: CLICK

FIRST ARTICLE: The Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2009

California high court upholds Prop. 8

Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.

In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.

The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.

Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.

The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.

"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.

UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."

In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."

She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.

Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."

In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.

Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.

Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.

The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution.

"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."

It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote.

"We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.

By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.

But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical.

"It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.

"It is hard to see how any repeal of any person's liberty or property would affect the structure of government" and be deemed an improper revision, Amar said.

Jesse Choper, a professor of constitutional law at UC Berkeley, said the court's ruling means that voters may take away individual rights "in a limited fashion" and that the scope of the measure will determine whether it is permissible.

"The court wasn't happy about this. Proposition 8 changed their opinion" last year that gave gays and lesbians marriage rights, he said. "The justices stood up and said, 'OK, people have the right to do so, and it is not a revision because it is limited in scope.' "

Justice Carlos R. Moreno dissented, calling the ruling "not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

"The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry," Moreno wrote, "it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."

Gay rights advocates and several legal scholars said they were surprised that the court did not attempt to rein in constitutional amendments.

"For the court to see only structural changes as those requiring a greater majority is perhaps the worst feature of the opinion today," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, who voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds. "It makes it much too casual for individual rights to be withdrawn."

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Proposition 8 campaign, said the court simply embraced what had been the law.

"Under this ruling, voters -- no matter what the hypothetical -- the voters can do anything they want with the state Constitution," Pugno said. If interracial marriage were not protected by the federal Constitution, voters could repeal it, he said.

During oral arguments in March, the court appeared to struggle over how to ensure that minority rights would not be trampled while still upholding Proposition 8.

But instead of curbing the amendment process, the court gave "a blank check to the voters without any limiting principle enunciated," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Shannon Price Minter, who helped argue the challenge for Kendell's group, said he doubted the ruling would have much influence outside California.

"It is such an internally contradictory ruling that I doubt it will be followed anywhere else," he said.

Ted Olson and David Boies, two prominent lawyers who had been on opposite sides in the Bush vs. Gore case, said they are coming together to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court. Gay rights lawyers have urged supporters to stay out of federal court, fearful of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could set the same-sex marriage movement back decades.

In addition to rejecting the gay rights groups' argument that Proposition 8 was an illegal revision, the court flatly discarded Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's contention that the measure should be overturned because it took away an inalienable right.

"No authority supports the attorney general's claim," the court said.

SECOND ARTICLE: The Christian Post

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday upholding Proposition 8, the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The court ruled 6-1 that the amendment was not an illegal constitutional revision by the people nor unconstitutional.

According to the ruling, the justices rejected complaints by Proposition 8 challengers "that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process."

"[I]t is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Lauding the decision, Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, responded, “We are very gratified that the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8. This is the culmination of years of hard work to preserve marriage in California."

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped defend Proposition 8 in court hearings, praised the court for respecting the results of fair elections and arriving "at the only correct conclusion: the people of California have a fundamental right to amend their own constitution."

Last November, 52 percent of California voters approved the ballot initiative, which overruled an earlier court decision that had legalized marriage for same-sex couples.

Although same-sex marriage is now banned in the state, the 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages that took place before the November vote have not been invalidated and will continue to be recognized under state law.

Gay rights supporters, however, still denounced the ruling and shouted "shame on you" outside the San Francisco courthouse.

They vowed to continue their fight and take the gay marriage issue back to the voters to repeal Proposition 8.

The Alliance Defense Fund warned that they may see a backlash by "radical activists" as they did when Proposition 8 was approved last year.

"The Alliance Defense Fund and our allies will not be bullied. These attacks will come, but we are prepared."

In the weeks following the November vote, churches and Christians reported acts of vandalism, bullying and some violence from gay rights activists.

According to Pastor Jim Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego, there were instances of intimidation and bricks being thrown through church windows. Pastors also needed security guards to ensure their protection, he noted.

"I didn't know how violent the radical left was with this issue," Garlow commented earlier to The Christian Post.

Garlow, who rallied the support of thousands last year to help pass Proposition 8, is organizing another rally on Sunday "in support and thanksgiving of natural marriage."

---
What do you think about these articles? Did they seem biased? How do you feel about the sources? Did they present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie

Post #6 - Benefits

As usual, I appreciate your comments. Today's article was pointed out to me by Mr. Aaronson. Thanks!

The article is here: CLICK.

Posted for your convenience: The New York Times, May 23, 2009

Diplomats’ Same-Sex Partners to Get Benefits

WASHINGTON — The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers.

Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits.

“Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,” Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association.

“At bottom,” she said, “the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.”

A senior State Department official confirmed the new policy, though he did not say when it would take effect.

Among the benefits are diplomatic passports, use of medical facilities at overseas posts, medical and other emergency evacuation, transportation between posts, and training in security and languages.

Gay and lesbian diplomats have lobbied the State Department for these benefits for several years. Under current policy, they note, diplomats with domestic partners could be evacuated from a hazardous country by the American government while their partners were left behind.

The State Department had declined to provide some benefits to the partners of diplomats, invoking the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of same-sex unions.

Mrs. Clinton was asked about the issue in February at her first town-hall-style meeting with department employees. “I view this as an issue of workplace fairness, employee retention, and the safety and effectiveness of our embassy communities worldwide,” she said, to applause.

Influential lawmakers also pushed for the changes — even drafting legislation requiring the State Department to offer these benefits — until Mrs. Clinton assured them that she would address the issue.

At a hearing last week on financing for the State Department, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, welcomed news of the planned change in policy. Mr. Berman, Democrat of California, introduced a former ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, who left the Foreign Service in 2007, citing unfair treatment of his partner, Alex Nevarez.

Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed the nation’s first openly gay ambassador, James C. Hormel, to serve in Luxembourg. Opposition by Republican senators blocked a vote on the appointment, leading Mr. Clinton to appoint him eventually during a Congressional recess in 1999.

---
What do you think about this article? Did it seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie

Post #5 - School report controversy

Greetings, everyone! Thank you for commenting. Interesting article for you today, discuss.

Article is here: CLICK

Posted for your convenience:

The San Diego Union Tribune, May 21, 2009

School curbs girl's report on gay rights activist Milk

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego is threatening to sue Ramona school officials after they told a sixth-grader she couldn't present a report on slain gay rights advocate Harvey Milk to fellow students unless their parents signed permission slips.

District officials told Natalie Jones and her parents that a report on Milk fell under the school board's life and sex education policy, which requires parental consent before any instruction on the topics of reproduction and human sexuality.

David Blair-Loy, the ACLU's legal director, said in a letter to district officials yesterday that they violated Natalie's free speech rights.

Natalie, 12, is a student at Mount Woodson Elementary School and did the report last month as part of an independent research project class at the school. Students in the class are required to do PowerPoint projects on a subject of their choosing.

Natalie picked Milk, who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States when he was elected in 1977 to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. After serving 11 months, Milk was assassinated in a City Hall shooting in November 1978 by Dan White, who had resigned as a supervisor but wanted his job back. White also killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone in the rampage.

The slain supervisor's life was the subject last year of the Academy Award-winning film “Milk,” starring Sean Penn.

The day before Natalie was to present the report in April, she was told by Principal Theresa Grace that she would not be allowed to show her project in class the way other students had done.

Blair-Loy, in his letter to the school district, said the girl was told the subject was “sensitive.” School officials later told the girl's mother, Bonnie Jones, that the presentation only could be shown to students whose parents had signed a permission slip in advance.

Superintendent Robert Graeff and Grace cited the board policy dealing with sex-education matters. The policy states that parents will be notified in writing about any teaching on the subjects of sex or “family life, human sexuality, AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases.”

Graeff did not return several messages yesterday seeking comment on the ACLU's letter.

The school rescheduled Natalie's presentation for May 8, at a lunch recess, Blair-Loy wrote. In the meantime, school officials sent home a letter to all parents in the class that included the permission slip.

The letter to parents described how Milk had championed minority rights, founded the gay rights parade and pushed for a gay rights act. The letter said parental permission was requested “in order to respect the rights of all our students and their parents.”

Natalie gave the presentation to about half the class, Blair-Loy said. The ACLU wants the district to apologize to Natalie, send letters “reflecting such apology” to parents who received the school district permission request, let Natalie give the presentation to the whole class and clarify that the board policy applies only to course content for sex-education instruction. The group also wants the district to say situations like this won't happen again.

“We think the school district singled out and discriminated against Natalie's speech because of its content,” Blair-Loy said. “This is not sex education. This is a presentation about Harvey Milk, a historical figure who happened to be gay.”

Bonnie Jones said she was upset and did not understand the district's objection.

“If you look at her presentation, I don't see anything that is wrong with it,” Jones said.

---
What do you think about this article? Did it seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie

Post #4 - DADT

Hey, bloggers! Short one for you today: CLICK

Posted for your convenience: The Washington Post, May 19, 2009

Pentagon: No plans to end don't ask-don't tell

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon says it has no plans to repeal the don't ask-don't tell policy for gay troops.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that the military's top leaders have only had initial discussions with the White House about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.

Under current rules, openly gay troops can be discharged from the U.S. military.

Morrell said the White House has not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

"I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don't ask-don't tell will be repealed," Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon.

President Barack Obama committed during the 2008 presidential campaign to moving to end the Clinton administration-era policy.

The 1993 law was enacted as a compromise between openly gay people serving in the armed forces and those opposed to gays in uniform.

Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen both have discussed the issue with Obama.

"They're aware of where the president wants to go on this issue, but I don't think that there is any sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal don't ask-don't tell," Morrell said.

Post #3 - The American Idol post

Hey everyone. I haven't been following AI this season, but there are a bunch of articles cropping up, so I found an interesting one for you in honor of finale week. Quite different than the previous ones, more opinion/feature. Tell me what you think.

The article is here: CLICK.

Posted for your convenience: - The New York Times

April 10, 2009

American Idol’s Big Tease

LET’S say you are an “American Idol” contestant with a criminal history. Let’s say you claimed to have had an affair with Paula Abdul. Let’s imagine that you are found to have posed for topless photos or been charged with identity theft.

These are not hypothetical scandals. Each has occurred during the eight-season run of the top-rated show. And each has duly been processed out of consciousness at a speed accorded most show business scandals — forgotten in the nanosecond it takes us to move on from the latest reality TV distraction and back to our ordinary lives.

Let’s imagine, then, that among the assorted warblers and strummers and leather-lunged divas that have made up the renewable cast of hopefuls on the country’s No. 1 television show, you appear not as some talented hopeful with a shady backstory but as a theatrical creation with a message to sell beyond the usual will to prevail. You are swivel hipped and pillow lipped. You have an outsize talent and a fondness for Cher. You have blond hair dyed black and styled in an asymmetrical shag. At some long-ago moment, you gave in to your inner Maybelline girl.

You are Adam Lambert, the contestant widely tipped as a favorite to be the next winner of “American Idol.” And the only thing standing between you and riches and the chance to play arenas may be a question currently burning up the Internet: Can a gay contestant win?

Leave aside for a moment the answer to such a question, or even whether Mr. Lambert is gay. He may be. He may not. Fox, which owns “Idol,” is not saying; neither is the contestant himself.

What is notable is the intensity of the insinuations caroming around the Internet and in certain corners of the mainstream press — that and the fact that even asking whether a gay contestant can win a broadly popular reality show, whose survivors are selected by public acclaim, seems increasingly anachronistic in light of decisions in Iowa and Vermont to extend marriage rights to gay men and lesbians.

Still, ask they do. Pointing to “embarrassing pictures of Mr. Lambert circulating on the Internet,” photographs that show someone who looks uncannily like the contestant tongue-wrestling another man, the conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly inquired last week on his Fox News show, “These pictures that hint that he is gay, will they have an effect on this program, which is a cultural phenomenon in America?”

Cultural critics with a broader frame of reference than Mr. O’Reilly’s can easily contextualize Mr. Lambert in a long line of performers who tantalize the public with their talent and equally with their gender ambiguities. Think of Liberace. Think of Prince or Bowie or Elton John or K. D. Lang or Pete Wentz. “We have always had that person” on the pop landscape, said Aaron Hicklin, the editor of Out magazine. “The difference now is that previously the conversation about sexuality has not been as public. When Liberace was around, there was no real way to talk about this stuff.”

Now, of course, there is no way and no reason to stifle conversation about the signals Mr. Lambert appears to send in the form of song choices pilfered from the hope chests of anthemic divas (Cher’s “I Believe”); his bio (he was a child who enjoyed dressing up a lot but sports “not so much,” said his father in an on-air interview); and a theatrical style at times so arch that his country-night version of “Ring of Fire” evoked for Sarah Chinn, the executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, “Joey Arias channeling Billie Holiday channeling Johnny Cash.”

According to a Gawker post last week, the “applause-o-meter” had Mr. Lambert pulling way ahead. “Might we actually get a Kris/Adam finale?” read the item, referring to Kris Allen, a generic teen idol type with a waxed cowlick and a lopsided smile. “Might, also, we get a Kris/Adam somethin’ else?’ Hah, doubtful. No one sees Adam without his skinsuit on, except maybe that fetching, fey little blond character they keep cutting to and describing as Adam’s ‘friend.’ ”

Predictable as the snarky innuendo is, it also struck a discordant Roy Cohn note, coming in the week when Vermont’s Legislature voted to override a veto by the governor and recognize gay marriage, adding the Green Mountain State to Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in a list of states actively advancing the cause of civil rights for gay people. “The entire system is changing so rapidly it is not to be believed,” said David Ehrenstein, a Los Angeles based film critic and scholar who writes the hilarious Fablog.

America’s heartland, he said, turns out to be politically contiguous to its notoriously liberal coasts. “Iowa is apparently infested with San Francisco values,” he said.

Even the White House made a point of inviting lesbian and gay families to join in an annual Easter Egg Roll.

Thus it seems plausible that a person with more than a toe peeking out of the closet might actually win the most hotly contested singing show on the planet. True, it took six years of public insinuation before Clay Aiken, the popular also-ran from Season 2, made the choice in 2008 to come out. When he did so, however, the anticipated career-stall never happened. The news was greeted with a collective yawn.“I see us as living in the post-Neil Patrick Harris era,” said Mr. Ehrenstein, referring to the actor who in 2006 trumped online efforts to expose his sexuality by publicly declaring himself gay to People magazine. “He crossed the Rubicon. He did the ‘sudden death’ play. Supposedly you come out and your career is over. He came out and his career is in better shape than it ever was.”

It is worth remembering how radical a shift this is in the public consciousness and that a half century ago, in the 1950s when the film producer Marina Cicogna first found herself in Los Angeles, as she recently told W magazine, studios forced Rock Hudson into bogus relationships with women and obliged gay actors “to lie from morning to night.”

In 1959 Liberace, the camp artifact best known, as one critic wrote, “for beating Romantic music to death on a piano decorated with a candelabra,” sued an English newspaper for libel for implying in print that he was gay. Given his taste for lacquered pompadours, rhinestone jumpsuits, white mink coats and pneumatic male personal assistants, it is hard now to imagine Liberace believing his public was deceived. But then it is still hard to square shifting public opinion with that of an industry that forces its gay talents to hide in plain sight.

When asked on the witness stand whether he was homosexual, Liberace emphatically told a judge: “No, sir! I am against the practice because it offends convention and it offends society.” He won the suit and damages and then, much later, was named in a $113 million palimony suit by his partner Scott Thorson.

“For a long time, gay men were very sensitive to being associated with effeminacy,” said Mr. Hicklin of Out. “It was highly objectionable, an example of stereotyping and caricature.”

Being photographed in drag or, as Mr. Lambert apparently was at the Burning Man Festival, wearing makeup and a thigh-high halter dress revealing enough to bring a blush to the cheeks of J. Lo, is far from a career-killer these days. “There was a common set of signifiers in theater and TV and popular culture that implied gay,” Mr. Hicklin said. “Gay men came to embrace all that because it came to feel far less threatening to be labeled in that way.”

Also, somewhat unexpectedly, heterosexuals took up the playfulness of gender ambiguity. “The gay thing got derailed by the way many straight guys started playing with image,” Mr. Hicklin said. Metrosexuals followed homosexuals out of the closet. Pete Wentz posed for the cover of Out. “Pete Wentz wears makeup and clearly is confident enough not to be threatened by any assumptions his fans or nonfans might come to,” Mr. Hicklin said.

Like Mr. Lambert — whose more steadily assertive gender games are likely to reach an apotheosis this week when the “American Idol” contestants are asked to perform their favorite movie song — performers are now free to treat real or putative gayness as another show business tool, a peekaboo game, a ploy. So-called low forms of sex relationship that entertainment industry codes once kept from being depicted on movie screens are now so routine a feature of pop culture that when “Saturday Night Live” recently parodied the proliferating pop references to sexual experimentation in a sketch titled “The Fast and the Bi-Curious,” the Entertainment Weekly critic Ken Tucker slapped the show down for using jargon that “feels old and overused.”

Unlike other reality shows, said Joe Jervis — a gay activist blogger whose recent mention of Adam Lambert on his site Joe My God generated 50,000 hits from people searching the term “Is Adam Lambert Gay?” — the contestants on “American Idol” aren’t voted off their little show business island by one another. Love them or hate them, it is up to America to choose.

“The show is squarely in the hands of the viewers,” Mr. Jervis said. It is just that vox populi aspect of “American Idol,” he said, that demonstrates radical changes “in the popular view of openly gay people.” That may be. But it is certainly also worth noting that a Revlon habit is no surefire tip-off to gayness, latent or otherwise. Ask Marilyn Manson. Ask Devendra Banhart or Brandon Flowers or any of the other members of groups sometimes called “eyeliner bands.” For that matter, why not ask Kiss?

---
What do you think about this article? Did it seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively? What's your opinion on this subject?

Thanks,
Sofie