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

Post #2 - Gay Marriage in New York

Thanks to everyone that commented on the first post, I hope you'll check out this one as well. Feel free to comment on the previous post as well, if you haven't.

The first article is here: CLICK

The second article is here. CLICK


Posted for your convenience: 

FIRST ARTICLE - Catholic Broadcasting Network

May 13, 2009

New York: The Next State to OK Gay Marriage?

New York is one step closer to becoming the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.

The state assembly passed legislation Tuesday night, but the bill could face a tougher battle in the state senate.

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes

It was a long Tuesday night in the New York Assembly. After about four hours of debate, the same-sex marriage bill passed by a vote of 89 to 52.

However, the assembly passed the bill in 2007 and it died in the senate. So far, there does not appear to be the 32 votes in the senate to pass the measure.

But the battle continues with New York's Catholic governor leading the charge to get a bill on his desk and New York's Catholic archbishop taking a vocal stand against it.

"We stand to tell the world that we want equality for everyone," said Gov. David Patterson. "We stand to tell the world that we want marriage equality in New York State."

"My brother bishops here in New York are already beginning to formulate a good stand and public posture on that, and you can count on me to be a part of that," said Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

Not Clear When State Senate Will Work on Measure

Democrats did not control the New York State Senate when they defeated this bill in 2007. They do now. But it is not clear when the senate will take up the issue.

The legislative session ends in June and the majority leader says he won't bring the issue to the senate floor until the 32 votes are secured.

So for now, gay marriage is legal in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine.

SECOND ARTICLE - The Huffington Post

April 16, 2009

Your request is being processed...Your r

New York Gay Marriage Bill Introduced by Governor Paterson

NEW YORK — Gov. David Paterson introduced a bill Thursday to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, comparing the effort to the fight for the abolition of slavery.

Paterson, whose job approval rating has plunged below 30 percent, is making a political gamble that he can ride the momentum of other states that have recently allowed the practice, and it's unclear how the legislation will play in New York.

The proposal is the same bill the Democratic-controlled state Assembly passed in 2007 before it died in the Senate, where the Republican majority kept it from going to a vote. Democrats now control the Senate, but opponents are vowing to make sure this one fails, as well. Some Democrats in the Senate have indicated they won't support a same-sex marriage bill.

Gay marriage is a crucial issue of equal rights in America that cannot be ignored, Paterson said. He was joined by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, other elected officials, gay rights advocates and his wife, Michelle Paterson.

"For too long, gay and lesbian New Yorkers _ we have pretended they have the same rights as their neighbors and friends," he said. "That is not the case. All have been the victims of what is a legal system that has systematically discriminated against them."

Paterson, the state's first black governor, framed the issue in sweeping terms, invoking Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and drawing a parallel between the fight to eliminate slavery in the 1800s and the current effort to allow gay marriage.

"Rights should not be stifled by fear," Paterson said. "What we should understand is that silence should not be a response to injustice. And that if we take not action, we will surely lose."

Gay and lesbian couples are denied as many as 1,324 civil protections _ such as health care and pension rights _ because they cannot marry, Paterson said.

"Look me in the eye and tell me that Kim and I aren't a family, that we don't struggle every day, that we don't pay taxes, that we don't work every day in this city," she said. "No one can look me or her in the eye and tell us that, because it is not true."

At the same time Paterson was announcing his proposal, Sen. Ruben Diaz, also a Democrat but an opponent of same-sex marriage, met with religious leaders to discuss how to block the bill.

Diaz, an evangelical pastor from the Bronx, said his meeting was to inform Hispanics, Catholics, evangelicals and others opposed to same-sex marriage of their options to prevent the bill's passage.

Diaz said it was disrespectful of Paterson to introduce the legislation in the same week that Catholics celebrated the installation of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who has voiced opposition to same-sex marriage.

"I think it's a laugh in the face of the new archbishop," Diaz said Thursday before the start of his meeting in the Bronx. "The Jews just finished their holy week. The Catholics just received the new archbishop. The evangelical Christians just celebrated Good Friday and resurrection. He comes out to do this at this time? It's a challenge the governor is sending to every religious person in New York, and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge."

Paterson, who attended Dolan's ceremony Wednesday at St. Patrick's Cathedral, defended the timing of his announcement and brushed off suggestions that he was deflecting attention from the state's financial troubles, saying he has supported same-sex marriage publicly since 1994.

"I haven't in any way changed my point of view," he said. "We stand to tell the world we want marriage equality in New York state."

Paterson noted he was introducing the proposal with "the winds at our back," referring to the recent approval of same-sex marriage in Iowa and Vermont.

New York Democrats gained a 32-30 Senate majority in November's elections. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who did not attend Thursday's announcement, supports the measure but has said he doesn't believe there are enough votes to pass it.

A Quinnipiac University poll this month showed that 41 percent of New York voters backed legalized same-sex marriage; that 33 percent favored civil unions; and that 19 percent wanted no legal recognition for such couples.

In March, a Marist College poll showed Paterson's job approval rating was 26 percent, down from 46 percent in January and 57 percent in October.

-----

What do you think about these articles individually and in comparison? Did either seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively? Also I want to get some feedback concerning public opinion about the issues themselves, so don't be afraid to state your own opinion.

Thanks,

Sofie

Post #1

Good day everyone! Welcome to my senior project. This first post contains two articles concerning the recent hate crimes bill in the United States. I posted them here for you to read but I encourage you to go to the actual websites to check out the sources.

The first article is here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/house-passes-hate-crimes-bill/

The second article is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/30/social-conservatives-blast-hate-crime-saying-limit-free-speech/


FIRST ARTICLE - CNN Political Ticker

April 29, 2009

House passes hate crimes bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday expanding federal protection against hate crimes to disability, gender, and
sexual orientation.

The bill, which was approved by a margin of 249-175, passed in a sharply-divided partisan vote. An overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the measure, while most Republicans were opposed.

The proposal, which now moves to the Senate for further consideration, is one of the most sensitive civil rights issues to come before the Congress in years. Currently, federal law covers only a person's race, religion, or national origin.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act would also expand federal protection against hate crimes to acts committed under any circumstance, as opposed to acts committed only when an individual is engaged in certain federally-designated activities, such as voting.

Known as the Matthew Shepard Act, the measure would allow the attorney general to issue grants to cities and states for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting hate crimes.

Shepard was a gay student at the University of Wyoming who died in 1998 after being attacked because of his sexual orientation.

The bill has received support from a range of civil rights and law enforcement groups, who argue that is a necessary addition to civil rights protections first issued over forty years ago.

"Hate crimes tear the fabric of our society … because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, said during the debate on the House floor.

"The fact of the matter is hate crimes happen every day, and we should not wait for another Matthew Shepard to ensure justice."

Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, argued in a written statement that the legislation is necessary "because hate crimes are such a unique offense. They are an attack not just on individuals but an attempt to terrorize and demoralize entire communities."

Some conservative opponents of the bill, however, argued that the bill violated traditional American conceptions of equal justice by establishing specially protected groups of citizens.

"Regardless of whether a person is white, black, handicapped, healthy, old, sick, young, homosexual, heterosexual, a veteran, a police officer, (or) a senior… Whatever the case is, they deserve equal protection under the law," Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, said.

"That is the foundational premise of this nation and this legislation moves us all directly away from that. … Whenever we begin to divide ourselves into groups and afford one group more protection than another, we necessarily diminish the protection and equality of all the remaining groups."

Other opponents warned that the legislation would undermine freedom of thought and expression.

"If this bill becomes law, it will have a chilling effect on many law-abiding Americans' freedom of expression," Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina, said.

It "will start us down the road towards a public square that is less robust, more restrictive, and that will squelch our cherished constitutional right to free speech. … We should not live and legislate in fear of bankrupt ideas."

Besides, Foxx asked, is "there such a thing as non-hateful violent crime?"

Supporters of the bill replied by claiming that there is, in fact, a distinction.

"Hate crimes are different from other types of crimes because the perpetrator targets a certain type of person based upon physical or other personal attributes," Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida said.

These "crimes are a purposeful, violent, and dangerous manifestation of prejudice. … (They are) not only a problem for victims, but also for our communities and neighborhoods."

SECOND ARTICLE - FOX News

April 30, 2009

Social Conservatives Blast Hate-Crime Bill, Saying It Will Limit Free Speech

Social conservatives say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if hate crimes legislation now headed to the Senate becomes law.

A Senate hate crimes bill that would extend federal protection to gay and transgender victims is rousing the ire of social conservatives who say their right to free speech will be jeopardized if it becomes law.

"In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault -- putting someone in fear of their safety -- what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" said Mathew Staver, founder of the Liberty Council, a law firm that works on religious freedom cases.

"It elevates homosexuality to the same protective category as race. It's all part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda," Staver said.

For much of the last decade gay rights activists have been fighting for inclusion within the federal hate crimes law, which places greater penalties on crimes that are committed based on race, ethnicity and religion. Social conservatives, including former President George W. Bush, have fought the legislation on the grounds it could be used to prosecute religious groups who say homosexuality is morally wrong.

But with Democrats now controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, gay rights activists are confident the law will pass and President Obama will sign it. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, 249-175.

"This is one of the most supportive environments we've had," said Thomas Howard, Jr., programs director for the Matthew Shepard Foundation, an advocacy group named for the gay University of Wyoming student whose 1998 murder became a rallying point for homosexuals.

"The issue is when someone is targeted as a direct result of who they are. This isn't about telling people what they can and can not say."

Frederick Lawrence, a law professor at George Washington University, said there is nothing within the language of the hate crimes bill that would allow for the prosecution of individuals who simply speak out against a particular sexual or ethnic group.

"The only language that would be criminalized is language that would be meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement," he said. "Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, can not be criminalized."

But that is doing little to calm conservative bloggers, who are outraged by the possibility that a suspect acquitted of a crime in state court can be retried in federal court if the case becomes categorized as a hate crime.

"That is true and it's not unique to the hate crimes arena," said Lawrence. "There is an exception to double jeopardy called the dual sovereignty doctrine. But the Department of Justice has a very strict set of regulations when they can retry someone."

During the debate on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., angered gay rights activists by claiming Shepard was murdered in a robbery, and not because he was gay.

"(The) hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," Foxx said.

The congresswoman later apologized, calling the word hoax "a poor choice of words," according to The Associated Press.

In 2004 the ABC television news program 20/20 ran a story in which Shepard's murderers said they killed the 21-year-old for drugs and money in a robbery gone wrong, and not because he was gay -- contradicting the testimony of some witnesses at his murder trial.

The piece went on to portray Shepard as a troubled individual and included an interview with a Wyoming police detective who said he believed the murder was not based on Shepard's sexual orientation.

"It's something we hear quite a bit," Howard said. "I'd like to ask (Foxx) if she has read the trial transcript. Certain individuals completely changed their stories."

-----

What do you think about these articles individually and in comparison? Did either seem biased? How do you feel about the source? Did it present the issue effectively?

Thanks,

Sofie