Congress nears key votes on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Chris Johnson | May 12, 2010 | 

As crucial votes loom on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the House and Senate, supporters of repeal are stepping up pressure on lawmakers to act this year.

During the week of May 24, the Senate Armed Services Committee is set to consider major defense budget legislation. Opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are expecting Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to introduce a measure to overturn the law as part of the consideration of the defense authorization bill.

At around the same time, the House version of the defense authorization bill is expected to come to the floor. Those favoring repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are anticipating that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) will offer an amendment that would end the law.

Whether sufficient votes exist in the Senate committee or on the House floor for repeal is unclear. On April 30, Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a letter advising Congress to hold off on any repeal vote. Most observers said the letter would have a chilling effect on repeal efforts.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said he’s “not very” confident that there will be enough votes for passage because he doesn’t believe those seeking to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are sufficiently lobbying lawmakers.

“If I felt that the community was lobbying the way it should be, I’d feel better, but everybody wants to be the armchair quarterback and not do the more boring work of calling up their representative,” Frank said. “I’m optimistic in general, but the key question is will people make the calls or not?”

To step up the pressure on Congress, a group of about 350 citizen lobbyists swarmed Capitol Hill on Tuesday to encourage lawmakers to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of a veterans lobby day sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United.

The event, which was the most highly attended lobby day in HRC’s history and the largest lobby event on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” followed a White House visit Monday in which LGBT veterans urged administration officials to move on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the lobby day events were “enormously successful” in part because of the sheer numbers.

Nicholson estimated that about 90 percent of those who participated in the event were veterans, a fact he said had an impact on lawmakers sensitive to the concerns of those who have served in the military.

“They were people who actually had credibility talking on the issue and people who could actually engage military legislative assistants eye-to-eye and issue-to-issue,” he said.

As a result of the lobby day and other efforts, Nicholson said he saw potential for Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to move toward supporting repeal after previously being on the fence.

Still, the outcome of the votes in the House and Senate remained unclear. Most repeal supporters said they were more likely to find success in the House than the Senate.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he agreed with an assessment given to him by Murphy in the House that sufficient support exists for passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the floor.

Still, Sarvis said “we’re a couple votes short” of repeal succeeding in the Senate Armed Services Committee, although he noted that it’s still possible to win more support in the time remaining before the committee markup.

Sarvis said a key to winning more support would be finding “a legislative compromise” that addresses the concerns Gates raised about holding off on repeal until the Pentagon completes its study on the issue.

LGBT lobbyists have been pushing for delayed implementation legislation — a bill that Congress would pass now and would take effect in 2011.

On Monday, Levin said he wanted to pursue repeal as part of the defense authorization process — if the votes are present — and that he favors the idea of passing legislation that wouldn’t take effect until later, according to Roll Call.

“What we ought to do is repeal it, but make the effective date after the report,” Levin was quoted as saying.

Additionally, Sarvis said President Obama needs to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and convince senators to move forward on the issue.

“The person that we need to hear from the most in these closing days is the president of the United States,” Sarvis said. “The president is in the best position to reconcile the concerns that Secretary Gates expressed with the desire of Chairman Levin and others in the next two weeks.”

Nicholson similarly said he believes repeal would pass in the House and that in the Senate Armed Services Committee a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be close. He also supported forcing a vote among Senate Armed Services Committee members even if the votes are lacking for repeal.

“I think we’re starting to consider the idea that if you called the bluff of those who say they’re leaning ‘no,’ that they may change their mind,” Nicholson said. “We’re talking about one or two votes. Calling their bluff and doing the vote anyway and proceeding to the outcome is potentially a legitimate tactic, now, too.”

It’s possible that the House version of the defense authorization bill would contain repeal language that the Senate bill lacks, meaning a conference committee would resolve the issue. Whatever the conference committee decides would be the final legislation that makes its way to Obama’s desk.

Asked about whether repeal could succeed this year if only the House votes in favor of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Frank said supporters “ought to focus on trying to lobby members.”

“It bothers me that you and your readers and others are worrying about what they can’t affect in lieu of doing things that they can affect by calling members and lobbying,” he said.

Sarvis said “there’s no way of knowing” whether repeal is still possible through the conference committee if the House acts on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Senate is unable to pass repeal.

“If the House votes for full repeal and the Senate doesn’t, yes, the issue is alive and will be within the scope of the conference, but it will be far, far more difficult to keep in there,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis said “it’s urgent” that both the House and Senate act to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of the defense authorization bills because that would provide repeal supporters the best conditions heading into conference committee.

Nicholson said “it’s not as likely” for repeal to succeed if one chamber of Congress votes in favor of it and another chamber doesn’t, but said such a situation would nonetheless provide a path to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“People may be disappointed and pessimistic if it comes down to the conference committee and fighting it out there,” he said. “But Congressman Murphy and Sen. Levin are 100 percent committed to seeing action on repeal this year, and are going to fight for it even if it comes down to conference committee.”

New iPad by Google Verizon..Could it be called gvPad?

Google to Take on iPad

Steve Jobs, watch out for Google coming up behind you: Google and Verizon Wireless have teamed up to develop a tablet computer, similar to this year’s groundbreaking Apple iPad. Verizon Wireless chief executive Lorne McAdam told The Wall Street Journal that the country’s largest mobile network teamed up with Google to “look at all the things Google has in its archives that we could put on a tablet to make it a great experience." A Google spokesman declined to comment, but has acknowledged in the past that they want to develop a lightweight computer using their own software. The Motorola Droid, which came out last year and uses Google software, is run Verizon Wireless's network.

The Michelangelo Effect

The Michelangelo Effect

posted by Wendy Strgar May 11, 2010 11:01 am

 

 

Love isn’t an emotion or an instinct–it’s an art.   –Mae West

Done with conviction and commitment, the way great artists approach their masterpieces,  our loving relationships sculpt us into the highest and best form of ourselves.  This is their only job and their highest purpose.   Through love we entrust our loved ones to mirror and elicit from us the aspirations and values that we have expressed so that the commitment to the relationship transmutes into a commitment to ourselves.   The late Caryl Rusbult, coined the term the Michelangelo effect to describe this dynamic of close intimate relationships in her 30 plus years of research.   Her studies demonstrated that love thrived and endured when the relationship’s meaning was interpreted through both partner’s ability to focus on and achieve the personal growth that each held dear.

Michelangelo approached his art with this same eye of love.  He said “In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”   His work of setting free the figures that were sleeping inside the stone is the embodiment of love as art.   His mastery and genius was the product of what he himself  called:  “eternal patience” which reflects volumes of truth about what it takes to make love work in our lives.

Loving relationships of all kinds, whether with romantic committed partners, parents, children, siblings or friendships are the most gentle and effective teachers that life offers us to become the person we aspire to be.  Accepting the flaws in the people we love and working with them is the same sculpting work that Michelangelo faced within his blocks of stone.  Like a master stone cutter, we learn to discern minor imperfections from the deeper flaws that the “eternally patient” hand of love is able to integrate into the greater beauty of the piece.  We create beauty from the inherent difficulties of loving the flaws and imperfections in each of us.

10 Signs You’re Falling in Love

10 Signs You’re Falling in Love

posted by Samantha, selected from Tonic May 11, 2010 1:02 pm  

By Annie Scott, Tonic

Ah, spring. For whatever reason, our bodies seem to be programmed to fall in love as the season changes and everything outside begins to grow. Whether your feelings are requited or not, be sure and revel in them. Sometimes, just the feeling of falling in love can be all the inspiration you need to help pull you out of that winter doldrums rut.

You don’t have to act on your lovey-dovey feelings. Crushes are likely to pass, as are spring’s tempting wiles, so try not to be too vexed if you or the object of your affection is unavailable. If one of the things below is happening to you, just try to enjoy it.

Here are 10 Signs You’re Falling in Love, whether you like it or not!

1. You forget to eat.

Super telltale. Forgetting to eat means you’re not only distracted, but that you also want that person more than you want food, so you forget all about it.

2. You catch yourself smiling.

A little love in your system can surprise you so much, you can’t help butsmile. It’s half because you feel so good, and half because you’re laughing at yourself.

3. You can’t look at the person.

Suddenly, it’s impossible to hold a decent conversation with the object of your affection, because you’re afraid if you look them in the eye, they’ll be able to tell you’re melting for them inside. A good trick: talk to their forehead.

4. You think about them when you’re getting dressed in the morning.

Don’t pretend you’ve never done it. You start analyzing whether he or she would like the blue shirt better, and putting a little more effort into your hair. No harm done!

5. You realize you miss them when they’re not around.

If you’re used to seeing the object of your affection at work or class and then one day they’re not there, you’ll feel like your whole day was wasted.

6. You get jealous about odd things.

You find out they saw a movie last night and now you are enraged. Why didn’t they think to invite you? Who did they go with?? Your ears turn red as you try and mask your jealousy.

7. You’ve pictured what how you two look together.

    You take mental pictures of you two making love, walking or just sleeping together.

8. People say you’re glowing.

The feeling of being in love is physical, and like laughter, it can have healing, rejuvenating benefits. This is one of the reasons it’s okay to revel in your feelings, even if they’re for the wrong person — just don’t make any stupid mistakes.

9. You’ve suddenly become Donna Reed.

Male or female, you start bringing cookies and brownies to share with the office or class, and you glance to see that the object of your obsession has noticed. And, you keep your apartment neat and tidy in case they might come over — these are definitely signs you’re falling.

10. You can’t concentrate on work.

Maybe even as you read this article, you’ll glance and realize that half an hour has gone by. That’s because you’re daydreaming. And you are in looo-oooove.

More Undocumented Migrants Dying to Cross Over the Border

More Undocumented Migrants Dying to Cross Over the Border

posted by: Natasha G. 

In 2009, 419 undocumented migrants died trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, up from 2008 when 390 people died, according to a recent studyconducted by the non-partisan research organization National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). This is the first increase in deaths in four years.

Why has it become more deadly to cross the border?

In 1994, Operation Gatekeeper was enacted as a plan to fight illegal immigration, employing a "prevention and deterrence" strategy. It concentrated resources and border patrolmen in populous areas, and was deemed a success early on because it resulted in less apprehensions. However instead of actually lessening the number of people attempting to cross over, Operation Gatekeeper caused people to seek more remote and dangerous routes to cross through. A 2007 ACLU report reveals that from Operation Gatekeeper's inception in 1994 to the 2007 publication of the report, death toll estimates range from 3,801 to 5,607. Meanwhile the number of undocumented immigrants have grown from 8.4 million in 2000 to 11.9 million in 2007.

A large number of recorded deaths are due to environmental exposure, particularly desert heat. Some die due to train or motor accidents, drowning, homicide or suicide. And many more have undetermined causes of death. The exact numbers and identities are difficult if not impossible to pinpoint because often remains are not found.

Why should anyone be concerned with the plight of people who have not gone through the standard procedures to gain legal entry? Simply put, no human being should have to risk death in order to gain a new life. While the U.S. immigration system remains full of red tape and sky-high fees with no guarantee of entry, impoverished men, women and children are risking their lives to cross over.

Arizona On The News Again. It Bans Creation of Human-Animal Hybrids

Arizona Bans Creation of Human-Animal Hybrids

posted by: Sharon Seltzer 17 hours ago

 

Arizona is back in the news for another controversial new law.  Only this time the law sounds like it came right out of a science fiction movie.  Effective as of July 29, 2010 it will be illegal in the state for scientists to produce or try to produce a human-animal hybrid.

Last Friday, Governor Jan Brewer signed the new law which will prohibit any resident of Arizona from "creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm." The statute also makes it a crime to "knowingly destroy human embryonic stem cells during research" and makes it illegal to clone a human being.

Although the law appears to be futuristic and a little over the top, researchers have begun to experiment on creating Chimeras -- "hybrid life forms that contain genetic material from both humans and animals." 

A story written in Frum Forum describes three separate research projects that have attempted this:

• In 2003, Chinese scientists took human cells and fused them into rabbit embryos, creating human-rabbit hybrids.  They developed for a few days before being destroyed. 
• In 2005, Stanford University researchers trying to find a new treatment for Alzheimer's, injected human embryonic stem cells into the brains of mouse fetuses.
• In 2007, scientists at the University of Nevada, Reno developed a sheep whose cells were 15 percent human.

The concept of creating a hybrid life poses a whole array of ethical questions and that is why Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, drafted the statute for Arizona.  She became concerned after reading how scientists in the United Kingdom put human DNA into empty cow eggs in order to create special embryonic stem cells for the research of various diseases.

Barto explained, "It's placing some ethical boundaries around scientific research in Arizona.  This law will proactively prevent such experimentation."

"We're drawing a protective line to say that human life is valuable and needs to be protected," she continued.  "We need to make sure that we're not going outside of that ethical boundary."

Ironically the new law may end up protecting innocent animals from being used in Arizona laboratories for research.  And it may make people take a second look at how similar animals are to humans -- in terms of feelings and intellect.

If research in the area continues, someone will have to decide what percentage of a species is human and what rights they have.  It also brings up issues of ownership and slavery. 

On the other hand, critics of the new law don't believe it is necessary at all because the National Academy of Sciences has set up their own guidelines on human-animal hybrid research.  These guidelines only allow the DNA from humans to be fused into the embryos of animals and not vice versa.  The implication is that only a small part of a human is being placed inside a whole animal.

The guidelines also forbid any successful human-animal hybrid that reaches maturity from breeding.

Creating human-animal hybrids is a confusing proposition.  Arizona may have made a smart decision to pass a law that sidesteps these issues. 

Lithuania's Gay Pride: Despite Molotov Cocktails, Smokebombs and Protests, They Marched

Lithuania's Gay Pride: Despite Molotov Cocktails, Smokebombs and Protests, They Marched
posted by: Steve Williams 3 days ago

Tell a FriendSharePrint
FacebookDiggRedditCare2StumbleUponmore
48 comments
On Friday, it emerged that Lithuania's first gay pride march to be held in the capital, Vilnius, on Saturday, had been reinstated by a supreme court ruling that cited international human rights law. This came after a last minute appeal was made by LGBT rights groups to overturn a lower court decision to suspend the parade's license. You can read more about that here. While being widely praised by international human rights and LGBT rights advocates, the go ahead was overshadowed by threats of violence from right-wing groups and anti-gay protesters.

On Saturday, things didn't get off to a good start. Early in the morning, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the building of Youth for Tolerance, a human rights organization that helped to organize the Baltic Pride event. Fortunately, the device failed to ignite and there were no reported casualties.

Regardless, the march itself went ahead, with 400-500 people marching in the parade, a larger number than had been expected. LGBTs and straight allies came from miles around to attend with a strong foreign contingent being present.

Marchers walked beneath a huge rainbow banner and carried placards saying "Human Rights Are My Pride", "Different Families, Same Love" and "Marching For Those Who Can't."

From the Associated Press:

Holding large rainbow flags and dancing to music blaring from loudspeakers, they walked along a road near the city's Neris river.

Participants included many foreigners, diplomats and members of the European Parliament.

"We are here because we believe ... in a just society. Labels are for filing, for clothing, not for people. And we are here today to remove labels from people," said Birgitta Ohlsson, Sweden's minister for European Union affairs.

Here is a clip of the historic pride parade:




And a longer video:





Around 500 police were stationed around the parade route, some on horseback, so as to protect marchers from a crowd of around 1000 protesters (though some reports suggest that there were closer to 2000).

Protesters were kept at a distance by a wall of barriers that had been erected around the parade route, but that did not prevent demonstrators from shouting anti-gay epithets through megaphones while carrying placards baring similar messages. The protest was allegedly joined by a fascist group that chanted such things as "Away with pederasts, away with Jews, away with occupants... EU pederasts."

At one point, police reportedly fired teargas into the crowds of protesters when several attempted to jump the barriers. Protesters retaliated by throwing stones and improvised smoke bombs as well as broken street signs. Fortunately no one was seriously injured, while the pride marchers themselves were kept safe by the preparations the police had made.

Many protesters apparently believe that LGBT rights threaten Lithuania's "traditional" values and that the pride march itself only came about as a result of outside influence because homosexuality, they say, is not native to Lithuania:

Protesters carried crosses and signs and shouted insults at rally participants. A Catholic Mass at the nearby national cathedral was held to pray for homosexuals.

"Sweden has already wiped out traditional families. Now they came over here to tell us how to live, how to think and who to sleep with. Lithuania will not allow such perversions," said Jonas Kempinskas, who walked from the Cathedral to the protest holding a huge cross.

From the AFP:

Same-sex relations were decriminalised in Lithuania in 1993 -- two years after the country won independence from the crumbling Soviet Union, which had banned homosexuality.

But opposition remains entrenched.

"Homosexuality is not part of our traditional values. It's something imported into our country. They should keep it to themselves and not flaunt it," said mother of three Lina Saluckiene, as protesters prayed earlier outside Vilnius' cathedral.

The above quote draws on an almost universal criticism that is put to LGBTs over pride parades. "Why do you flaunt your sexuality?" "Why throw it in my face?" This is often followed by: "Just keep it private. Keep it in the bedroom."

While in places like America and Britain, pride parades are annual, often commercial, events, Saturday's Baltic Pride 2010 event in Lithuania demonstrates the core message at the heart of every pride parade: visibility and solidarity.

Pride events are not about "flaunting" sexuality or trying to indoctrinate or coerce. Simply, if you are not seen, it is unlikely that your voice is recognized as significant enough to be given attention; if you can not be heard, you can not combat the prejudice you face, and no one can hear you cry out when you are the victim of injustice or when you suffer intimidation, violence or labor under institutionalized homophobia, which, as we have seen, is a reality for LGBTs in Lithuania, just as it is many other places such as in Uganda and Iraq where to speak out in this manner would certainly lead to more than protests, perhaps even death. The banner mentioned above baring the message "Marching For Those Who Can't" takes on a new dimension, then.

And if there was any doubt of the power or significance of marches like this, a small part of a Reuters news article on the parade caught my eye:

For some the parade became an emotional moment.

"I just called my mother and told her I am gay. She was shocked, initially, of course, but I hope she will get over it," Artur, 17, who declined to give his family name, told Reuters.

Similar tales are being reported of how, moved to action by the march, others have come out to friends and family. As such, Saturday's march was historic, and as many marchers themselves noted, a significant landmark that, even under the potentially stifling threat of violence, was not halted. While there could be a backlash from this, the positive affirmation of the march, named "For Equality", radiates like a laser beam in the dark regardless.

Newsweek Says Gay Actors Can't Play Straight?

UPDATE: Newsweek Says Gay Actors Can't Play Straight?

posted by: Steve Williams 3 hours ago

Gay actors can't play straight roles convincingly because, as soon as we know their sexuality, it undercuts their performance entirely. However straight actors can do the reverse without much difficulty.

This is the premise of a Newsweek article entitled "Straight Jacket" written by Ramin Setoodeh (apparently openly gay himself). While I don't agree with the concept, when I began to read the article I expected that, as we approach the International Day Against Homophobia on May 17,  the article might be an examination of the connection between sexuality and how this can be perceived as an obstacle that Hollywood and TV producers have identified and used to dissuade actors and actresses from coming out.

Unfortunately not. The writer quickly goes beyond critique and lands firmly in the realm of bias:

The reviews for the Broadway revival of Promises, Promises were negative enough, even though most of the critics ignored the real problem—the big pink elephant in the room. The leading man of this musical-romantic comedy is supposed to be a single advertising peon named Chuck who is madly in love with a co-worker (Kristin Chenoweth). When the play opened on Broadway in 1968, Jerry Orbach, an actor with enough macho swagger to later fuel years and years of Law and Order, was the star. The revival hands the lead over to Sean Hayes, best known as the queeny Jack on Will & Grace. Hayes is among Hollywood's best verbal slapstickers, but his sexual orientation is part of who he is, and also part of his charm. (The fact that he only came out of the closet just before Promiseswas another one of those Ricky Martin-duh moments.) But frankly, it's weird seeing Hayes play straight. He comes off as wooden and insincere, like he's trying to hide something, which of course he is.

The word "weird" is perhaps key here. A myriad of ways were open to Setoodeh through which he could have presented his argument as a genuine exploration of how sexuality, among other personal characteristics, might alter audience reaction to a performance.

Instead, Setoodeh makes sweeping personal statements, first as to Hayes' performance, and then moving on to openly gay actor and Broadway star Jonathan Groff who guest stars as Jesse St. James in the hit show Glee, saying:

There's something about his performance that feels off. In half his scenes, he scowls—is that a substitute for being straight? When he smiles or giggles, he seems more like your average theater queen, a better romantic match for Kurt than Rachel.

This completely ignores the fact that while the character is supposed to be a leading man - which, in my opinion, Groff clearly is - he is, at the same time, a theater darling (the character readily admits this fact in his first episode). It also neglects to factor for the brilliant and unapologetically sudsy overtures of the show, instead attacking Groff whom the writer even admits a few sentences earlier was, in a straight role for Spring Awakening, a "knockout singer and a heartthrob."

Perhaps most offending is this little nugget: "As viewers, we are molded by a society obsessed with dissecting sexuality, starting with the locker-room torture in junior high school." Setoodeh uses this as a reason to support his concept that gays aren't convincing in straight roles for the viewing audience, while ignoring that his own article seems to be grounded in the very same mentality that feeds the "locker-room torture" climate.

He continues by cherry picking other stars who would seem to undercut his argument by explaining that they either came out after they were in a starring role and are now no longer famous - Cynthia Nixon - or play broad, ineffectual caricatures - Portia de Rossi - tossing around crudely constructed excuses (at one point incorrectly suggesting that because people accept lesbians more than gay men they don't count) before crashing on to his closing argument.

He asks, if George Clooney came out tomorrow, would an audience still accept him as a heterosexual leading man? Then he concludes with this blunted hook: "Doesn't it mean something that no openly gay actor like that exists?"

The shame of all this is that the through-line of the article contains a very salient question as to why the lack of out-actors has come about and what we can do to tackle the issue, but it has been marred by a clear bias that  prevents intelligent debate.
 
While I could take my time to dissect and refute the above points, I have been beaten to the punch by someone who has done it so marvelously that it would really be redundant for me to do so, though I do have a few small comments that I will save for later.

However, pint-sized Broadway sensation, LGBT rights advocate and devoted Christian, Kristin Chenoweth (pictured), was so affronted by the article, and especially at its targeting of her co-star Hayes, that she felt forced to write a response that has now been published on the website autostraddle.com in which she calls the article "horrendously homophobic" and berates Newsweek for publishing the article. Her letter is exerted below:

From where I stand, on stage, with Hayes, every night — I've observed nothing "wooden" or "weird" in his performance, nor have I noticed the seemingly unwieldy presence of a "pink elephant" in the Broadway Theater...

This article offends me because I am a human being, a woman and a Christian.... Setoodeh even goes so far as to justify his knee-jerk homophobic reaction to gay actors by accepting and endorsing that "as viewers, we are molded by a society obsessed with dissecting sexuality, starting with the locker room torture in junior high school." Really? We want to maintain and proliferate the same kind of bullying that makes children cry and in some recent cases have even taken their own lives? That’s so sad, Newsweek! The examples he provides (what scientists call “selection bias”) to prove his "gays can’t play straight" hypothesis are sloppy in my opinion. Come on now!...

Cynthia Nixon only "got away with it" 'cause she peaked before coming out? I don’t know if you've missed the giant Sex and the City movie posters, but it seems most of America is "buying it." I could go on, but I assume these will be taken care of in your "Corrections" this week...

Lastly, as someone who's been proudly advocating for equal rights and supporting GLBT causes for as long as I can remember, I know how much it means to young people struggling with their sexuality to see out & proud actors like Sean Hayes, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris and Cynthia Nixon succeeding in their work without having to keep their sexuality a secret. No one needs to see a bigoted, factually inaccurate article that tells people who deviate from heterosexual norms that they can’t be open about who they are and still achieve their dreams... I encourage Newsweek to embrace stories which promote acceptance, love, unity and singing and dancing for all!

You can read the full, sensational response by going here.

Everyone is allowed their opinion, of course, and I would defend Setoodeh's right to say or write anything he wishes, even if it is as broadly unqualified as the aforementioned piece. But, that Newsweek would publish this article in its Culture section as a serious analysis, and not for the op-ed it clearly is, when it so broadly misrepresents the issue seems to break the duty of responsible journalism.

It is not due to a lack of talent that openly gay and lesbian actors are prevented from achieving the heights of fame that their straight and closeted counterparts manage as the article seems to suggest, but rather it is the homophobic (not necessarily anti-gay) attitude of Hollywood that uses the same defense that this article (perhaps unintentionally) perpetuates: That audiences won't find an openly gay actor believable in a straight role.

This is a circular argument that encourages actors and actresses to stay closeted if they wish to get anywhere in the business that we call Show, and therefore the problem, never challenged or changed, is left to stagnate and prevent yet another generation from being open about who they are, perhaps dissuading them completely from wanting to pursue a career in the limelight. Their talent should be the primary thing of concern and, increasingly, this is the factor on which they are judged.

That there are no openly gay actors or actresses in the searing spotlight is also clearly an incredibly narrow statement. Put simply, there are.

Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has starred in several high grossing and globally recognized film franchises in the past decade - Lord of the Rings, X-Men - while continuing to play leading roles in theater productions such as in Trevor Nunn's 2007 production of King Lear, whereby one critic called McKellen's performance "a crowning glory." McKellen came out in 1988. His best days were certainly not behind him.

Another British example to sit alongside the likes of Neil Patrick Harris or Cynthia Nixon: Russell Tovey, known to international audiences as Rudge from the play The History Boys, currently stars in BBC 3's acclaimed supernatural drama Being Human as a (straight) man called George who suffers under the curse of being a werewolf. There is nothing about his performance in the show that is unconvincing, "wooden" or "weird" but Tovey has been openly gay for a number of years and continues to be offered diverse roles, including that of the leading man.

Based on this Newsweek piece though, who could blame young stars such as Tovey for choosing not to come out?

Yet, in the spirit of looking on the bright side of things, the article did give the ever radiant Kristin Chenoweth a chance to respond with her usual affirming and ever irreverent style, whereby she could yet again voice her support for LGBT rights from the standpoint of being a straight, devoted Christian, who is also a powerful voice for equality.

Lastly, because Setoodeh neglected to support his statement that gays can not play straight roles with any polls, statistics, or even anecdotal evidence of audience reaction, I wanted to throw this over to you in our quick poll and ask: Does an actor's sexuality matter?

---

Update 12 May, 2010: Setoodeh has now written a response to Chenoweth and those who have criticized his article. You can find it here.

He details how he has received distressing emails and phone-calls regarding the article that have been personally insulting and have said such things as calling him a "self-hating Arab" and more.

Let me be clear, this behavior is completely unacceptable and should never have happened. However, he also claims that his words have been misrepresented or over-simplified and I find this a stretch.

While the concern over Newsweek publishing this as a serious analytical piece and not an op-ed remains, I am, however, pleased to see that in his follow-up, Setoodeh has clarified the through-line of the article that I mentioned in my post above, and that he has attempted to steer the discourse back to the actual point that he was trying to make:

But what all this scrutiny seemed to miss was my essay's point: if an actor of the stature of George Clooney came out of the closet today, would we still accept him as a heterosexual leading man? It's hard to say, because no actor like that exists. I meant to open a debate—why is that? And what does it say about our notions about sexuality? For all the talk about progress in the gay community in Hollywood, has enough really changed? The answer seems obvious to me: no, it has not. 

As mentioned in my own small post, it was a deeply sad that these very valid, very relevant questions were obscured by needless invective. I am therefore grateful that Setoodeh has sort to clarify the article's intent in this way.

I stand by what I, and others, have said however. Setoodah's original article was clouded by a preconceived opinion toward actors such as Hayes and Groff (in spite of the latter largely disproving his case) and that he used sometimes personal, unqualified examples and remarks to try and support an essay that was ineffectual and unfortunately quite unclear.

The controversy over the original Newsweek article continues to rumble on though. Ryan Murphy, the creator of the hit show Glee,  has written an open letter that was first published on EW, wherein he has called for a boycott of Newsweek:

“I would like to join my good friend Kristin Chenoweth on her condemnation of a recent Newsweek article written by Mr. Ramin Setoodeh, in which Setoodeh basically says that out gay actors should go back into the closet and never attempt to play straight characters. This article is as misguided as it is shocking and hurtful. It shocks me because Mr. Setoodeh is himself gay. But what is the most shocking of all is that Newsweek went ahead and published such a blatantly homophobic article in the first place…and has remained silent in the face of ongoing (and justified) criticism. Would the magazine have published an article where the author makes a thesis statement that minority actors should only be allowed and encouraged to play domestics? I think not.

Today, I have asked GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios to stand with me and others and ask for an immediate boycott of Newsweek magazine until an apology is issued to Sean Hayes and other brave out actors who were cruelly singled out in this damaging, needlessly cruel, and mind-blowingly bigoted piece. An apology should also be issued to all gay readers of the magazine…steelworkers, parents, accountants, doctors, etc…proud hardworking Americans who, if this article is to be believed, should only identify themselves as “queeny” people (a word used by Setoodeh in the article) who stand at the back of the bus and embrace an outdated decades old stereotype.

The letter continues with Bryan Murphy inviting Setoodeh to the Glee set to soak up the inclusive atmosphere. I would personally say that calling the piece "mind-blowingly bigoted" might be a bit strong, but that is my opinion.

As always, I am keen to hear your thoughts on all this so please have your say below and take part in our quick poll.

Shakira Is Not A Fan Of Arizona's Law

Celebrities Care, Too: Shakira Is Not A Fan Of Arizona's Law

posted by: Erika Oglesby 12 hours ago

Most people typically associate Shakira's voice with catchy, chart-topping pop hits -- but now the Colombian singer is using her voice to speak outagainst Arizona's new immigration law.

Shakira may not be a U.S. citizen, but in a recent visit to Phoenix, she asserted that she is "a person and Latina who believes in equal opportunities and who believes that this country has values that I have always admired and defended."

Shakira pointed out that under the new law, she could be detained. "I'm here pretty much undocumented," she said, referencing the fact that she did not have her driver's license on her person.

However, the pop star was more concerned with the negative repercussions of a law that could set up daunting situations for both legal and illegal immigrants:

"I just met with some families and women who have been subjected to domestic violence, and they are so concerned," the singer said. "They're going to live in fear to call the police or to report a crime that has been inflicted to them. They're trying to protect their kids and their own families from abusers. and now they're going to have to protect themselves from the government."

Latina or not, Shakira believes the law is about human rights. "I'm in opposition to this law because it is a violation of human and civil rights. It goes against all human dignity, against the principles of most Americans I know."

Shakira is not the only celebrity to speak out against the new law; she joins the ranks of Ricky Martin, Danny Glover and Gloria Estefan (among others) to oppose the bill. You can speak out, too, by signing this petition: Racial Profiling? Not In My America!

I didn't mean to touch judge's butt, my cerebral palsy made me do it

Lawyer: I didn't mean to touch judge's butt, my cerebral palsy made me do it

BY THOMAS ZAMBITO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, May 12th 2010, 8:28 AM

Murray for News

Hippocrate Mertsaris, 35, admits he touched a Taxi and Limousine Commission judge on the butt, but says it was because of a spasm resulting from his cerebral palsy.

Queens prosecutors have charged Hippocrate Mertsaris, 35, with sexual abuse and sexual harassment for allegedly grabbing the woman's inner thigh and buttocks during a meeting in her Kew Gardens offices.A disabled lawyer accused of touching the rear end of a Taxi and Limousine Commission judge is blaming it on his cerebral palsy.

Mertsaris' lawyer, Wyatt Gibbons, admits his client touched the woman but denies it was sexual.

"He whacked her in the butt but it wasn't sexual abuse," Gibbons said. "He has spastic movements."

Gibbons says the East Elmhurst man uses a wheelchair and gets around with the help of a health care aide.

"If he was starving to death and had a hamburger in front of him he couldn't lean over to pick it up," Gibbons said.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 15.