Google and The Rainbow Logo Search Button for Pride

Internet search engine Google has marked Pride month by adding a rainbow flag to its search bar.

The design (pictured) appears next to the interactive search box when users type in the words 'gay' or 'lesbian'.

Google Operating System said in a blog post: "It's not the first June when Google changes the search results interface when you search for [gay] and other related terms.

"While in 2009 and 2010 Google added a colorful bar below the search box, this year there's a rainbow next to the search box."

Previously, Google have been vocal about supporting the repeal of Proposition 8 and recently produced a video in support of the It Gets Better campaign. 

My mom and I walking down 28th ST.,NYC-Suddenly I Decided to Come Out

Courtesy of Amita Parashar

Journalist Amita Parashar

 I was surprised by her response, but I quickly launched into my defense. "It shouldn't really matter, who I'm with. I mean, I know it does, but it shouldn't, right? As long as I'm with someone who treats me well, right?

I said I didn't want to keep anything from her, and not saying anything felt like lying. I wasn't askingfor her permission, even though I desperately wanted her approval.

She started to cry. She said — more to convince herself than to convince me — maybe I would change and start dating men. She then asked if this meant I was never going to get married. To Hindus, marriage is considered a necessary stage of life like birth and death. There was a long pause, and she added, "To a man!"

My parents had always hoped my brother and I would get married and settle down in California. For my mother, that image of the future was now put in question. She also knew Sarah, and knew she's from New York. She asked if this meant I wasn't moving back home to southern California.

I remember thinking, of all the things to worry about having a gay child, that is the one she picked? But I also knew it meant that she understood how important Sarah was to me.

I have a good four inches on my mom and at that point, I put my arm around her. I said, "You know I'm still the same person, right?" And because she is a mom, or maybe because she's my mom, she put her hand on my back and asked me if I was happy. She told me she loved me and she handed me 20 dollars before she left.

That conversation felt like ripping off a Band-Aid. For a long time, I was worried how she would respond. But then, I realized, I just needed to trust that she'll be able to deal with it in her own way. And at least, I'm not hiding a really important part of my life from her.

This spring, when she came to visit me in Washington, she introduced Sarah to my family — as a new part of our family.

Amita Parashar is a journalist and a member of the Tell Me More staff.

http://www.npr.org/

  

My mom and I were walking down 28th street in New York City, past a line of Indian restaurants, when I blurted out, "Can I tell you something? I'm dating someone ... but you might not like it. It's a woman. And actually, you know her. It's Sarah."

I had procrastinated until the last few hours of her visit, and she was rustling through her purse, pulling out money to give me before she left — she always does that. My stomach was doing flip flops.

She stopped and gave me the long look she always gives me when I do something wrong or say something sharp — and she said, "That's not nice."

She stood there for some time. I could tell she was trying to think through what I just told her. "Well, that's not really dating," she said as if I were 10 years old again and I didn't know what dating meant. I was 24.

Can Saudi Arabia's Ban on Driving by Women Be Overturned By Women?

 

BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT

•  

In the latest protest against Saudi Arabia's ban on driving by women, about 40 women on Friday took part in what the New York Times called "random acts of women driving."

Friday's protest actions followed the May 22 arrest of Manal al-Sharif, a 32-year-old Saudi woman who posted a video of herself driving on YouTube. (In response to a question about that incident, a U.S. State Department spokesman offered this mute statement to reporters: "We understand there’s an active debate on a lot of these social issues in Saudi Arabia, and we trust the government of Saudi Arabia to give careful consideration to these voices of its citizens as they speak about issues of concern.")

Curiously, there is no written law barring Saudi women from driving. Rather, the ban is rooted in rulings by conservative Muslim clerics who hold sway in the kingdom. And this particular limit on women's freedom has long been controversial, drawing public protests as far back as 1990.

To learn more about the history of the driving ban and the current protests, I spoke to Christoph Wilcke, senior Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch. The following transcript of our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

I understand there's not actually a written law that says women can't drive. So how does this ban work?

Saudi Arabia applies Islamic sharia law, which means it is uncodified law. It is whatever the government or judges say it is. And it may change from one day to the next. The country does have written laws, except for in some very important areas such as criminal law. So there is no law that says women cannot drive.

There are several sources of making law. First there is the council of ministers, which carries out the legislative and executive functions of the state. The council writes laws and enforces them. Then there is a royally appointed council of senior religious clerics which gives out authoritative rulings of Islamic law. They usually follow the strict Wahhabi, or Hanbali, interpretation of Islamic law, and when they say something, it is binding. Finally, there is the office of the mufti who issues fatwas -- that is, he responds to individual queries about what Islamic law is on particular questions. But the mufti's answers are not binding. In the early 1990s, in response to a question about whether it was Islamically acceptable to drive, the mufti issued a fatwa that said women must not drive. Around that time the Ministry of Interior also issued a decree saying that women were not allowed to drive. But whether a ministry can make law is up for debate.

So how is it that driving as a woman is not permitted?

Because there is no written criminal law, the government can detain anyone for anything. So Manal al-Sharif was detained and accused not only of driving as a woman but also of stirring up internal strife. Now, stirring up internal strife is not written down as a crime, either, but the government can make it up as it goes along. There are people in Saudi Arabia who are detained, accused, charged, tried and convicted for the unwritten crime of not submitting complaints about the government in the proper fashion -- i.e. complaining in the media rather than submitting a petition to the ruler.

Is the driving ban enforced?

Women have always ridden camels and donkeys in much of the Islamic world, including what is today Saudi Arabia. Women in the rural areas of the country have driven cars in the past and continue to do so. They don't, however, have licenses. And there has for some time now been a modern movement to get women the right to drive. There was a famous 1990driving by 47 women in Riyadh. Starting in 2006-07, a number of women started petitions for women to drive. In 2008 or so, a woman filmed herself driving in the eastern province and put the video on YouTube. But it didn't cause the reaction that the current protests are getting because it was a different political environment. There was also a time when several women went to their local traffic offices and said, "OK, we can't drive, but who said we can't apply for a driver's license?" They were turned away.

In the Shura Council, the royally appointed parliament with some legislative powers, there were twice proposals in the mid-2000s about how to move toward allowing women to drive. But these proposals never made it to a vote.

Is it possible to know how the population views this ban? And is there a particular constituency that favors the ban?

There's no polling that I'm aware of, and I'd be a little bit suspicious of polling in Saudi Arabia, especially of women, because it's hard to get a good sample. You can't speak to women on the street, for example. There are some vocal groups on both sides of the issue. There's an online petition by some Saudi women called "My Guardian Knows What’s Best for Me," saying that they don't want any new rights. Then there was a small group of men who started a Facebook group saying they would beat any woman who drives on June 17.

But the most important group that supports the driving ban is religious conservatives. They view any increase in women's position as a wedge that will undermine male-dominated society. This group is powerful, but many Saudis believe that they are a minority. Now, the number of women who want to be able to drive is quite large. It touches on every woman's life because they have to pay $200-$300 per month to your foreign driver, or you can't get around.

What has the reaction of the regime been to the recent protests?

I think they've been caught on the back foot on this one. It's different from the Shia in the eastern province protesting for the release of political prisoners. It's different than an Arab Spring-style day of rage coming to Saudi Arabia. This is a social issue. In the end it has everything to do with political structure and male dominance, but it's not about regime change. The initial reaction to detain Manal al-Sharif produced such a strong reaction inside Saudi Arabia that the government is now thinking twice about how to handle this. There are so many people who want the ban lifted among the elites and the talking classes. In those circles, I'm sure the support for lifting the ban is overwhelming.

• Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at jelliott@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More: Justin Elliott
• http://www.salon.com

Lil B Unveils I'm Gay Album Cover

By Rob Markman
http://www.mtv.com

Lil B is proud to be gay — or rather he's proud to be happy, as stated on his new album cover, which he revealed Wednesday (June 15) exclusively on "RapFix Live."

After announcing that he will be titling his next album I'm Gay, the Based God received criticism from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and other rappersand even got death threats from fans. But despite all the hoopla, B's album isn't quite as alarming as many suspected it would be.
The cover — which was done by the "Wonton Soup" rapper's artist friend Uncle Grumpy — was made from scratch but based off of a 1970s Ernie Barnes painting titled "Sugar Shack." The famous painting was used in the popular '70s sitcom "Good Times" and as the album cover to Marvin Gaye's 1976 album I Want You. Rap group Camp Lo also threw a nod to the classic work on their 1997 debut Uptown Saturday Night.
The Based God, however, put a 2011 spin on the painting, which depicted a club scene that reflected one of Barnes' childhood experiences. B took the painting and broke it down into three parts, showing the steps that people need to take to reach "mental freedom."
"Pretty much the album cover, you see it's the three sides of the slavery, mental slavery and mental freedom at the ending where everybody is happy," B said to MTV News. "The reason why I did the I'm Gay album, I really seen that the hip-hop community is being very close-minded and very hateful, very violent."
The Berkeley, California, rapper feels that his polarizing album title will help take the sting out of the word "gay" and eventually lead to global acceptance. "People use evil words, money, separation, stuff like that. I just wanted to make this to show words don't mean anything," he said.

Tina fey On Tracey Morgan: 'Without Them(LGTB) He Would Have No Clothes to Wear'

Posted by LGBT Weekly

Tracy Morgan, shown here in a
clip from NBC's 30 Rock\Source: NBC

Comedian and 30 Rock star Tracy Morgan has issued an apology in the wake of community outrage inspired by anti-gay comments made during a comedy show at Nashville’s Ryman Auditorium last weekend.

The Human Rights Campaign reports that Morgan, who has encountered criticism in the past for his at-times controversial stage humor, reportedly went on the offensive with regard to gay individuals and gay rights during the recent stand-up show. According to Entertainment Weekly, Nashville native Kevin Rogers — a gay man and former fan of Morgan’s who attended the show — later posted on his Facebook page that the comedian launched into an anti-gay rant in the midst of his act, suggesting that “the gays needed to quit being p—ies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying.”

Rogers’ posts quoting Morgan’s tirade drew swift media attention – especially those claiming that Morgan said he would kill his own son if he turned out to be gay. As the comments continued, Rogers explains, audience members began to leave – but he insisted on staying:

“I don’t really give in easily,” Rogers said, “and I thought…if I stand up and leave, he wins.”

Rogers added that he wasn’t angered by Morgan’s comments – merely disappointed. However, other members of the LGBT community reacted more heatedly to Tracy Morgan’s upsetting remarks; and today, the comedian issued an apology to his fans and any gay and lesbian individuals who may have been offended by his on-stage behavior.

“I want to apologize…for my choice of words,” Morgan said in a statement. “I’m not a hateful person and don’t condone any kind of violence against others.”

He went on to describe himself as an “equal opportunity jokester,” and to admit that last week’s show went too far and “was not funny in any context.”

Hours before Morgan published his apology, GLAAD released a statement urging Morgan’s management team to investigate the comedian’s purported comments and, should they prove true, have them removed from his comedy routine.

Update: Morgan to return to Nashville, apologize to audience members; Tina Fey reacts to homophobic comments

ABC News reports today that Tracy Morgan will return to Nashville next week in order to apologize personally to the audience members he offended by making anti-gay comments during his standup act earlier this month. GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios, who spoke with Morgan about the Nashville visit, told ABC that the comedian is truly sorry for his homophobic language and intends to support his public apology with public action.

Fellow 30 Rock star and colleague Tina Fey responded to the news of Morgan’s anti-gay behavior with disappointment, stating that she was “disturbed” by the violence of Morgan’s comments. Fey, who is herself a vocal advocate for LGBT rights, added that she hopes for his own sake that Tracy’s apology is acceptable to the LGBT cast and crew of the hit NBC show, without whom the actor “would not have lines to say, clothes to wear, sets to stand on, scene partners to act with or a printed-out paycheck from accounting to put in his pocket.”

Same Sex Marriage in NY Enters The LAST day For a Vote

New York (CNN) -- With the clock ticking on New York's legislative session, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is hoping lawmakers will use their last scheduled day to take up his proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Currently, 31 senators, including two Republicans, are in favor of the bill. Its backers need one more GOP member to vote in favor for it to pass.

Cuomo says it would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex."

The first-term governor has lobbied opposition and undecided senators in an effort to secure the single vote needed for its passage.

A vote on the measure, which the state Assembly passed Wednesday night, has been stalled in part by Republican concerns over protections for religious institutions against the potential for litigation in the wake of the proposed law.

Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, have expressed concerns over the "unintended consequences" of a bill that redefines the legal parameters of marriage.

"There have been some meetings with the governor's office indicating that they are receptive to some changes to the legislation," Skelos said in Albany last week, indicating discussions would continue.

Democrat Tom Duane, an openly gay member of the state Senate, countered that there are "already laws on the books in New York state which protect people of faith."

"Marriage is a civil right. People get married, and it is recognized in government," he said. "We're talking about the government recognizing same-sex equality."

Still, some analysts contend that Cuomo's discussions with Republican lawmakers could be intended to provided political cover for those who want to vote for the measure but are dissuaded by the potential backlash that could result from breaking ranks with their conservation base.

"I don't think any one Republican wants to the one person deciding the vote ... because that person would not get a lot of conservative support in the next election," said Kenji Yoshino, a professor of constitutional law at New York University's School of Law.

"Ironically, it might be easier to get 35 (votes) than it is to get 32," he added.

Cuomo has the option of extending the legislative session and has indicated he's willing to do just that.

"There is a full agenda for both the Assembly and Senate to accomplish and the legislative session will not end, either through regular or special session, until the people's business is done," the governor said last week.

A recent Siena Research Institute poll found that 58% of New Yorkers support same-sex marriage, while more than one-quarter of voters say the measure -- along with extending rent regulation laws -- is one of their top two priorities.

Despite the polling numbers, a group opposed to same-sex marriage says New York lawmakers shouldn't be making the ultimate decision; the voters should.

"The voters of New York should have the same ability as 31 other states," Brian Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, told CNN's Don Lemon Sunday, saying a referendum in favor of same-sex marriage has always failed.

"We know what marriage is," he said. "We know that it's unique and special, and we do not want it redefined."

But Daniel O'Donnell, a member of the New York State Assembly who favors same-sex marriage said the issue is about equality.

"The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is one of our fundamental rights," he told Lemon. "I'm not seeking a marriage in the church ... I'm not seeking anything from any religion."

History hasn't been kind to attempts to pass same-sex marriage in New York.

The Senate rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009 and has blocked the last three attempts by the state's lower house to get the proposed legislation signed into law.

Although New York currently does not grant same-sex marriages, a 2008 appellate court ruling upheld the right of couples to have their same-sex marriages recognized if they are performed elsewhere.

The current measure would amend the state's Domestic Relations Law to say, among other changes, that "no application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex."

Five states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire -- and the District of Columbia currently grant same-sex marriage licenses.

CNN's Ed Payne, David Ariosto and Dana Garrett contributed to this report.

The ExGay Myth:Benoit Denizet-Lewis, interviewed One of Them and wrote exposé for The New York Times

Michael Glatze, who, along with his boyfriend of the time, once founded the “Young Gay America” magazine, which he used to help gay youth.

But after spending a decade fighting for equality and fighting on behalf of gay youth, Michael came out in an article on World Net Daily as a “straight” man, born again in the name of Jesus. It turns out that his “spiritual awakening” came after a medical scare involving heart palpitations that he feared could signal his untimely death.

Equality Forum

Glatze, left, with his ex-partner, Ben.

I have known far, far too many of these “ex-gays” who maintain that Jesus really did “fix” them even though they know just as well as I do that they are still attracted to the same-sex as much as ever.

Michael’s old friend, Benoit Denizet-Lewis, interviewed him and wrote the following exposé on him for The New York Times:

“God loves you more than any dude will ever love you,” he told me at the cafe. “Don’t put your faith in some man, some flesh. That’s what we do when we’re stuck in the gay identity, when we’re stuck in that cave. We go from guy to guy, looking for someone to love us and make us feel O.K., but God is so much better than all the other masters out there.” [...]

I asked Michael if he’d heard the news that Ben [his former boyfriend] had recently married in Canada. He blinked twice, and his body tensed slightly. “No, I didn’t,” he said. “To a man, or to a woman?”

“To a man. Were you holding out hope that he would marry a woman?”

“You have to understand something,” he said, leaning forward in his chair. “I don’t see people as gay anymore. I don’t see you as gay. I don’t see him as gay. God creates us heterosexual. We may get other ideas in our head about what we are, and I certainly did, but that doesn’t mean they’re the truth.” [...]

As we approached the school, I asked him what he thought about last year’s highly publicized gay teenage suicides and the ensuing It Gets Better campaign, in which gay people from across the country — and high-profile political leaders, including President Obama — recorded encouraging video messages aimed at gay youth. He didn’t hesitate. “I think it’s stupid,” Michael said. “It doesn’t get better if you’re gay.” (Read more)

The above picture to the left shows Glatze at a happier time when he fully embraced his sexuality and even fought to help gay youth. That’s a stark contrast to the image of him at the top, where he appears cold and colorless.

This is another reason why I absolutely loathe ministries that uphold the ex-gay mythlike The Ramp.

Ashton Elijah, based in Hattiesburg, Miss., is journalism major at the University of Southern Mississippi.

All articles by Ashton Elijah →

http://www.lgbtqnation.com

The Anglican Church to Allow Gay Bishops

By Agence France-Presse

LONDON (AFP) – The Anglican Church was on Monday set to approve controversial guidelines allowing openly homosexual clergy to become bishops.

In a paper due to be published Monday, the Church will seek to move in line with Britain's Equality Act by updating its rules to permit celibate homosexual men to be promoted.

The paper, entitled "Choosing Bishops - The Equality Act 2010", provides legal guidelines for those considering candidates for promotion and spells out that sexuality must not be a factor in the final decision.

"A person's sexual orientation is in itself irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office or indeed ordained ministry," the paper said.

However, the report does advise that church leaders could block a candidate if "the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question.

"It is clearly the case that a significant number of Anglicans, on grounds of strongly held religious conviction, believe that a Christian leader should not enter into a civil partnership, even if celibate, because it involves forming an exclusive, lifelong bond with someone of the same sex," it added.

"It is equally clear that many other Anglicans believe that it is appropriate that clergy who are gay by orientation enter into civil partnerships, even though the discipline of the Church requires them to remain sexually abstinent," the paper continued.

The Church has been urged to clarify its position after Jeffrey John, a celibate priest who is in a civil partnership with another cleric, was forced to stand down as suffragan bishop eight years ago.

The guidelines will be presented before the Church's General Synod in July.

The Anglican Church, which split from Rome in 1534, has 77 million followers worldwide and is Britain's dominant religion.