05/14/2007
News: Pete Wentz, Right Whales, Patty Hearst, Lithuania
Lawyers representing eight same-sex couples in Connecticut who say their civil unions aren't enough and they want gay marriage begin presenting oral arguments at the state Supreme Court today. Lawyer: "A law that says every right, every benefit and every legal aspect of marriage is given to same-sex couples shows that this is nothing more than a legislative policy decision of a special legal institution. The legislature already determined a fundamental sameness between couples. Constitutional law has discarded long ago any notion that a separate institution for a minority can ever be equal."
Endangered right whales seen in record numbers off the coast of Provincetown: “We’ve identified at least 120 whales. That’s out of a (worldwide) population of around 400.”
Lithuanian bus company removes gay tolerance ads after drivers refuse to drive buses carrying them: "Algirdas Krivickas, director of the trolley bus company in the western town of Kaunas, said employees had expressed strong emotions over the adverts which read: 'A gay can serve in the police' and 'A lesbian can work at school'. Drivers had refused to take out the trolley bus bearing the adverts. They had now been removed. 'Some said they feared the trolley bus could be vandalised, some said they do not want friends to laugh at them,' Krivickas said."
Christopher and Anne Rice hold Palm Springs benefit for Lambda Literary Foundation: "We hope to partner with local bookstores, libraries and colleges, holding symposiums and bringing prominent LGBT authors to the desert. It will be good for the Palm Springs area to be recognized as a cultural center for LGBT authors."
Signed in blood: Pete Wentz presents his original artwork.
Barack Obama roars in Kansas City: "The day that this president steps down, the entire world will breath a sigh of relief. After half a trillion dollars spent and after 3,400 lives lost of our bravest young men and women, thousands more wounded, legs severed, nerves shattered, it is time for us to bring this war to a close."
Serbia takes Eurovision Song Contest title as Ukranian drag queen Verka Serdyuchka take second. A blow-by-blow analysis from Rex Wockner.
Russian activists announce St. Petersburg gay pride parade at end of May.
Patty Hearst denies she's been offering advice to future jailbird Paris Hilton: "I must say that my heart goes out to the inmates of the Century Regional Detention Center. Forty-five days with Paris Hilton and the attendant publicity seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Perhaps THEY should be petitioning the Governor for relief?"
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage in that state may be unconstitutional and says she will support those challenging it: "She quoted a joint court opinion by Justices John Greaney and Roderick Ireland saying the 2003 SJC decision that legalized same-sex marriage 'may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exist, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage' as only between a man and a woman. The opinion also noted that the amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples by removing rights they already had been granted."
Bad lieutenant: Canadian police officer admits downloading an image that said "I love gay porn" onto the computer of a house she was searching.
Posted 1:15 PM EST by Andy in Art & Design, Books, Canada, Connecticut, Election 2008, Gay Marriage, Gay Pride, Law Enforcement, Lithuania, Massachusetts, Nature, News, Palm Springs, Paris Hilton, Patricia Hearst, Pete Wentz, Provincetown, Russia | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I feel sorry for Barack. He is going to lose the nod to Hillary. I also was wondering if anyone saw the interview with Mitt Romney on 60 minutes. I still wouldn't vote for him but he seems like he might put up a fight against Hillary in the election.
Posted by: Matt | May 14, 2007 1:36:20 PM
Good for Patty Hearst. I can't believe how many celebs I've seen getting all melancholy about Paris Hilton, going so far as saying they'd "pray" for her. Really? You'd PRAY for Paris Hilton?
Posted by: 000000 | May 14, 2007 1:39:06 PM
The Serbian singer was far superior to Ukraine's camp, Boy George stick.
Congrats to her!
Posted by: Tread | May 14, 2007 1:42:05 PM
Some might take the following as somehow a good sign, but I interpret it as proof that the majority of mainstream media news departments still considers full gay equality, read US, as irrelevant and not worthy of serious coverage except in instances of scandal or "abnormality," e.g., Mark Foley, Andrew Cunanan, little boys who like fingernail polish, etc.
1. Obama was interviewed at length Sunday morning by George Stephanopoulos on ABC. No mention of gays, no discussion of his position on gay marriage, nor the pending pro-gay bills in Congress [hate crimes, ENDA, DADT] that he may have to vote on.
2. McCain was interviewed for the full hour on NBC's "Meet the Press" by Tim Russert. Ditto. No mention of gays at all, nor what his votes will be, not the difference in the positions between himself and other Repug candidates and Dem candidates.
3. The Romney interview that Andy quoted Friday was broadcast on "60 Minutes." Though Mike Wallace called him on a number of issues about which he has changed his positions seemingly solely to appear more conservative in an effort to win the White House, his "going Right" on gays wasn't one of them. Save for a "blink and you missed it" statement by Wallace that Romney opposes gay marriage and civil unions, producers seemed not to care to include that Romney's recent statements, plus his Attila the Hun attacks on legal gay marriage in Massachusetts while he was governor contradicts his letter to the Loggers in 1994 [when running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy] that, “We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” said that he would introduce a Senate bill barring job discrimination against gays, and supported gays being able to serve openly in the military. This huge turnaround has not been buried in obscure gay rights documents, but was even covered by the "New York Times" as recently as December, but you would never know that from "60 Minutes," even, though, again, it would have been further ammunition for Wallace's challenge about Romney's integrity.
ABC, NBC, CBS—the alphabet of gay invisibility in America. How SAAD.
Posted by: Leland | May 14, 2007 1:53:38 PM
I think I just fell in love with Patty Hearst.
Posted by: sam | May 14, 2007 2:08:43 PM
Re: Pete Wentz
Okay, I've let a couple of Pete Wentz posts pass without comment, but I can no longer restrain my natural curiosity about the recent tidal wave of Wentz coverage in gay media. And so I ask, gentle Towleroad readers:
Are you, as typical representatives of teh gehs, interested in Pete Wentz?
If so, is it because you are a fan of his music? Or is it because Wentz leaked cameraphone pics of his willie?
Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know.
Posted by: 24play | May 14, 2007 2:18:24 PM
there's nothing more bliss than sitting on the herring cove beach off-season and watching the whales surface over the horizon.
ahhh...
Posted by: A.J. | May 14, 2007 2:30:33 PM
Hi 24...
To answer your query, no.
No interest in a chia pet celebrity
(add blogposts watch it grow).
Posted by: mark | May 14, 2007 2:34:53 PM
Only in Mass. would a constitutional amendment be considered somehow illegal under Mass. law! The AG would seem unqualified for the office. Now, it may be illegal under US law, but he didn't argue that, did he. Sorry, the amendment needs to lose fair and square, not through some sort of political kludge. One such amendment lost in Arizona or New Mexico last Nov. Otherwise, they have been passing in state after state. None have been successfully challenged in the federal courts. The oldest such amendment is from Hawai'i, and even their SC hasn't been silly enough to try to overturn it. (It reversed one of their decisions in favor of gay marriage.)
60 Minutes is just awful journalism in general. Lesley Stahl did an interest piece on the "causes" of gayness last year, but the information they presented was more "mystical" than helpful and led to evangelicals calling for fetal hormonal reparative therapy to prevent homosexuality.
Posted by: anon | May 14, 2007 2:48:23 PM
hmmm... signing your work in blood... how very 90's.
Posted by: A.J. | May 14, 2007 3:06:12 PM
Is marriage a religious institution?
I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they’ll shut up. Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage. I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions are not equal. It’s unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60’s. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks. We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe? Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid? Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced? I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn’t need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring. Beside don’t we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state?
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.
Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don’t get me wrong, I do love happy meals. The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service? I’ve heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation’s history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer. I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I’ve heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of “traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408 for more information on issues within gay culture please read; “why gay men do what they do”, an inside look at gay culture.
Posted by: aaron jason silver | May 14, 2007 4:35:36 PM
The Eurovision winner definitely appears to be a dyke. She came out in 2004 to the press and has since neither denied nor confirmed that she is a lesbian, but everyone in the Balkans seems to know she is.
In 2004 this article claimed that she had come out to her father after winning the Budva festival:
http://www.gay-serbia.com/press/2004/04-09-29-kurir-tata-ja-sam-lezbejka/index.jsp
In a recent interview in the Croatian newspaper Večernji list she was asked about reports in Serbian tabloids that she's a lesbian. Instead of denying them, she merely refers to the "yellow press" and the fact that they have to earn their 10 euros for a story. Let them! -- she says.
http://www.vecernji.hr/newsroom/scena/802491/index.do
(This didn't stop a re-report of the same story on the net from being titled "I'm not a lesbian" -- which she has never said.)
Posted by: KevinVT | May 14, 2007 5:25:15 PM
I realize I'm showing my age with this question, but..
Who the hell is Pete Wentz??
Posted by: mark m | May 14, 2007 5:33:28 PM
I like Fallout Boy. Great music. I also like that Wentz isn't afraid to play footsie with guys/girls or whatever it is he likes to bang.
The whales are gathering for the summer at PTOWN....whats to wonder about. Apparently they are about 25% gay as a species if 120 out of 400 are there.
Paris Hilton.....I have to agree with Patty if she really wrote it. I loved Leno's comment....**he said....a lot of people were very upset to hear Paris got 45 days for breaking probation.....they were sure that the sentance should have been lethal injection***
Gay marriage.....I guess if your religious you might want that word instead of civil union. But, *marriage* is a religious act, and word. All I want is all of the same rights that hetro's get when that word is applied by law. ALL of them....they can keep the word, it dosen't mean a damn thing....it's the rights and privledges that count.
The Russian entry to Eurovision was the best....to bad.
Posted by: joshua | May 14, 2007 7:04:43 PM
Oh....I forgot about Obama....he's just a media creation folks....lots of style but no real substance....come back in 8 years after you've done something to deserve to be President dude.
For those who would like someone who supports gay rights, always has and has no reservations, plus has a lot of good experience and seems to be a damn good politician(in the positive sense of the word).....you should seriously take a hard look at Bill Richardson....the Governor of New Mexico.
This guy is a sleeper. Has done a fantastic job in New Mexico, also as UN Ambassador under Clinton and Sec of the Interior under Clinton. A Liberal of the smart school, very strong on the Enviroment, civil rights, illegal immigration....take a look folks.
Posted by: joshua | May 14, 2007 7:11:15 PM
Joshua, you don't know what you're talking about in relation to the word "marriage" any more than you do Bill Richardson, however good a man he might be. He could be Christ off the Cross and he still would not stand a snowball's chance in the New Mexico desert of getting the nomination for President. VP long shot. P never.
Posted by: Leland | May 14, 2007 7:31:23 PM
Leland....oh but your so wrong. If you don't like my definition of marriage, then go back through recorded history and you might discover that as long as there have been formal religions, the term *marriage* has been used to describe the joining of a man and a woman. The only difference is the language of the tribe, nation or entity used. In fact, under the laws of the UK....civil union is required for ALL people, Gay. Str8 or in between to be joined under the law. A religious marriage ceremony may be had AFTER if the participants wish. And the UK isn't the only country that does that.
As I said above, you can call it anything you like, call it being **painted blue** or perhaps, being **Bingo'ed** or call it being **Lelandized** for all I care. Just make sure that when your done, I have the same rights and privledges any hetro's after their joining ritual.
As far as Bill Richardson is concered, I don't remeber saying he had a chance, I believe I said....in my opinion, he's one of the best or possible the best candidate out there. And you really should be careful about *snowballs in New Mexico* since many parts of the state get better snow fall than many NorthEastern states.
It may come as a surprise to you Leland.....but other people than you have brains, and opinions, and they are as good as or better than yours at times. Climb down from your strident/activist soap box now and then and go get some lessons in civility.
Posted by: joshua | May 14, 2007 9:41:13 PM
Well Joshua, I've been reading this week in Robert Aldrich's excellent Gay Life and Culture: A World History, about the various forms of marriage carried out in times past, from the "boy-wives" of Australian aborigines to Cabeza de Vaca's description of same-sex marriage among the Coahuiltecan Indians in 1530.
The one thing these different societies have in common is that they were all regarded as "devilish" by white Christian invaders who set about slaughtering them as punishment for their sodomite behaviours.
Posted by: John C | May 14, 2007 11:22:43 PM
What exactly marriage is depends on the culture that you are speaking about. In some cultures marriage is far more of an economic relationship than a religious one or a relationship about "romantic love" as it is in the secularized countries. Marriage can also be defined as the joining of one man and many women or far less frequently the marriage of one woman to many men typically depending upon how property is inherited. If men inherit property its one man many women and if women inherit property it is one woman and many men. In the Greco-Roman world marriage was often more about an economic arrangement between families then about love and there were often extra-martial unions that were actually about love which include same-sex unions. The extent that this occurred and officially recognized typically varied from city to city in the Greco-Roman world. Marriage has always been primarily about inheritance and raising children and then different cultures also gave it various other meanings.
Western marriage is a mix between the economic traditions of the various ancient cultures of Europe and then the Christianizing of Europe that was completed about 1000 years ago (don't forget about the Vikings who were the last to be Christianized). The concept of Separation of Church and State is a relatively new idea and so in the past marriage was an economic contract and a contract that included the church in fact in most countries canon (Catholic) law ruled marriage which is why Henry VIII broke away to form the Church of England which was to establish himself as an absolute sovereign including with regards to marriage laws and rights. The Roman Catholic Church took over the role of the old Roman Empire in the West which is why the Vatican is located in Rome and the Pope assigned Holy Roman Emperors for hundreds of years until the unification of Germany.
Marriage has been undergoing changes and in fact Marriage licenses have not always existed in the US and did not until the 1860's in order to regulate and make illegal interracial marriage and later due to Mormonism polygamous marriage. Marriage in the US until the 1860's was done by private contract which occurred because of the Separation of Church and State and because there is no real reason to have marriage regulated by the government. Remember that marriage in Europe had been regulated by the Church primarily and only later on by the various secular governments as they took powers from the Catholic church by forming their own official churches or due to secularization. The government actually shouldn't treat married couples any differently than single individuals that would be true equality. If the government insists on giving out marriage licenses then it should have to give them to us as well but they should also have to give them to polyamorous couples as well due to the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments. Although technically we shouldn't be receiving special rights as married couples compared to single people according to the 14th and definitely not at the federal level due to the now completely ignored 10th amendment.
I agree with the religious right that many of the same reasons for allowing gay couples to have marriage licenses are the same for polyamorous marriages but I don't agree that the state should be telling people how to properly live their lives or what is the best family type. I would personally like to see government marriage abolished and private marriage licenses re-allowed in their place which do away with things like pre-nuptials which are essentially marriage contracts. Since that isn't going to happen then we should be allowed to get government marriage licenses because to do otherwise is discriminatory. If you think that the government should be allowed to decide what type of family situation is best then I guess that you could argue against polyamorous relationships for now but they to will have to recognized by the state using many of the rationales we use for our marriage equality however the laws would have to be very substantially changed in order to accommodate polyamory into our system in ways that allowing gay couples to marry just wouldn't and won't. Marriage equality for LGBT people is definitely a different area than polyamoury I'm just saying that many, but not all, of the arguments are the same for both.
Marriage has changed substantially over the years in the US though. In the US I think we have had more tolerance for marrying for love than most other European nations did until recently but arranged marriage was quite common in the US until the invention of the automobile. Also there have been other changes such as the fact that when men and women are married they are not regarded as a single legal entity as they were until 1934 when the Supreme Court decided that even though her husband's citizenship had been revoked it didn't mean that hers should be. Until that time if a man lost his citizenship then so did the woman. Marriage was until that time literally a Union in which the woman became the man's property with few exceptions allowed for divorce which usually had to do with adultery committed by the woman where as it was more tolerated for men. Also interracial marriage was illegal in most states during the late 1800's and early 1900's including in the North where the KKK was huge in the 1920's and was not legalized until 1965. A Massachusetts law from this era was recently invoked to prevent gay couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts. Interracial marriage is only now becoming common place or at least not such a big deal at least in Arkansas.
Marriage has been further more and more defined by love than economics as the 20th century progressed. Also the word matrimony used to be used in the way that most people now use the word marriage. The word usage has changed in the US to the point that what used to matrimony (religious aspect of marriage) and the economic aspect was recognized as the marriage contract where as now it is often recognized as being more of a civil union. I suppose you could argue that marriage until recently included the religious viewpoint but we are moving away from that as a society although I think the return to private marriage contracts would actually reverse that trend because most people would have marriage contracts written by their particular religious sect. I don't have a problem with that as long as terms for annulment and divorce are included and like all private contracts they can be brought before a secular judge even if arbitration is called for in the contract.
As for Bill Richardson he is the best Democratic candidate in my view but that doesn't mean that he will win. And as for Obama he is as qualified for the Presidency as JFK was for better or worse. There are many who argue that had he not been assassinated we would not have such a positive view of him and that may prove to be true about Obama (not the assassination part but the not living up to expectations part). Also I think the best candidates for the Republicans is Ron Paul but he represents the old supposed "principles" of the GOP and not the Theocracy and War Party that it is today. He is the only Republican that I would vote for despite his anti-choice and arguably anti-gay stances but I feel that he would reign in the out of control foreign policy and domestic spending of the US in a way that none of the others would ever dare to do. He would be what Reagan could have been if Reagan hadn't been bogged down in the Cold War. I will probably end up voting third party in 2008 unless Richardson or Ron Paul somehow get their party's nomination. I might could be convinced to vote for Obama though it is doubtful as he is not strong enough anti-war for me. If Hillary wins the primaries then I will be voting 3rd party in 2008. Better to vote my conscience than vote for evil and if you are voting for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil.
Posted by: Jason Young | May 14, 2007 11:41:26 PM