Australian school drops ‘gay’ from children’s song
Principal Garry Martin of Le Page Primary School in Melbourne, Australia has gained national news attention for changing the words in a children’s song. The principal asked to the children to remove the word gay in the classic children’s song "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree." The song about a native Australian bird is a favorite around campfires from New Zealand to Canada.  When teaching a group of elementary students the lyrics, Martin told them that gay had two meanings, so they should change the line from “gay your life must be” to “fun your life must be.” [1] Martin claims that the change was to keep the children from laughing during the song; he told the Associated Press, "It wasn't misplaced political correctness, it wasn't homophobia, there was nothing really calculated in doing it." After one student relayed the change to his or her parents, Martin’s choice exploded into controversy, alerting local LGBT organizations. Crusader Hillis, CEO of the gay and lesbian advocacy group The Also Foundation, states that the controversy and attention that this story is getting is well founded. "It sends a signal to people that just because a word has two meanings, that one of those meanings is unacceptable and that's really putting us backwards," Hillis said. Principal Martin admits that his decision is a mistake and plans to teach the children the difference that words can have across generations. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-kookaburra-top.jpg
Contributer: Elise Bish

Culhane: What’s at stake in Uganda
I want to broaden the focus this week from the usual legal analysis of the LGBT movement in the U.S., and ask this question: What’s really at stake in the pending anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda? As readers of this site likely know, proposed legislation in that country would make certain kinds of homosexual behavior punishable by death, while seriously criminalizing other acts. For the increasingly visible LGBT community in Uganda, of course, the stakes couldn’t be higher. But what happens there – whether this law gets passed, and if so, how much it’s enforced – could have huge repercussions for the international human rights movement, and possibly even for the advance of our rights here in the U.S. Let’s start by looking at how this ugly piece of legislation originated: with the “counsel” and support of some American fundamentalists, who have made company with Ugandan politicians and its leader, President Yoweri Museveni (somehow overlooking that he’s a dictator) because of what Jeff Sharlet has called “the evangelical zeal of his regime.” Sharlet’s long-form article  in this month’s Harper’s is compelling reading. He connects the dots between the mysterious American evangelic group [1] known as “the Family” or “the Fellowship” and its Ugandan equivalent, which is ensconced within its Parliament. Frustrated by their failure to create a government sufficiently grounded in Christianity, U.S. “Family” members have tried, like big tobacco before them, to export their product to places where it still sells. Members include high-profile men like former AG John Ashcroft and Rick Warren, who infamously delivered the invocation at Obama’s Administration. According to David Bahati, the Ugandan member of Parliament who introduced the legislation, Warren told his Ugandan brethren that “homosexuality is a sin and that we should fight it.” There’s no evidence, of course, that American evangelicals want to kill us. But at least some of the most fundamentalist among them do want to eradicate homosexuality by curing it. Others would be satisfied stuffing us back into the closet. Since the first is a marginal and mostly ridiculed failure, and the second effort is collapsing by the day, perhaps these men think that success in a place like Uganda will one day be transported back to the U.S., even if in some watered-down form. Or maybe they’re just frustrated and looking for others with whom they find common ground. As I’ve written [2],  some (but not all) of the evangelicals who met with Ugandan leaders shortly before this unspeakable bill was introduced have beaten a full retreat; others, not so much. (Read especially about one Scott Lively, who seems, well, sinfully proud of his effort.) But the blood of our LGBT brothers and sisters is already on their hands: the scapegoating of sexual minorities that has accompanied the introduction of this bill has already led to such atrocities as “corrective rape” – which is supposed to have the effect of making a lesbian into a straight woman and violent and, according to the article, was carried out under clerical supervision in at least one harrowing case. None of these domestic evangelicals are idiots (except morally), and can’t have been surprised at the product of their toxic rhetoric. In a larger sense, this struggle is but a piece of a much broader conflict between the liberalism (both religious and secular) of the human rights community and the forces that resist modernity – in this context, I found particularly telling one Ugandan’s worry that the iPod, of all things, was an insidious agent of gay recruiting. Fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are the two most visible examples of these reactionary forces, but their ability to attract a huge global audience speaks to a primal fear of threats and change that many understand little and like even less. In Uganda itself, as Sharlet notes, “the homosexual” serves as a convenient bogeyman for the dictator to use to hold onto his power. The advances of the LGBT movement here in the U.S. can lead us to forget that things are much worse in many parts of the world. Even at the U.N. level, there are currently competing statements [3] about how to treat sexual minorities, with mostly the Western countries (and, since early in the Obama Administration, the U.S.) supporting gay and gender identity rights as part of the broader recognition of human rights while a number of other nations (mostly in the Middle East and Africa, and including Uganda) have signed onto a counter-statement that, among other misstatements, links homosexuality to pedophilia. There’s so much work to do, and the most critical of it isn’t here at home. But it’s hard to know what to do about these atrocities taking place so far from us, both geographically and culturally. John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things at: http://wordinedgewise.org [4]. [1] http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/09/0083101 [2] http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=663 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/19nations.html?_r=1 [4] http://wordinedgewise.org/
Contributer: John Culhane

Gay Games 2014 still set for Cleveland
The Federation of Gay Games (FGG) is committed to keeping the games in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio for 2014.  According to The Plain Dealer [1], rumors have been circulating about the possibility of Cleveland losing its spot, despite the transfer of the Gay Games [2] flag on August 7.  Photo by: The Cleveland Kid The Cleveland Synergy Foundation, the non-profit powerhouse that was behind Cleveland’s bid for 2014, was ousted by FGG because Synergy failed to meet reporting requirements for the event.  Despite the fracture, The FGG believes that the Cleveland-Akron games will, not only be successful, but hold a great deal of political and social importance.  Washington D. C. and Boston were both in the running for the 2014 games—Cleveland won the bid on the grounds of spreading acceptance and building visibility in a conservative part of the country.  "I think D.C. and Boston could do a great Games," FGG spokesmen Kelly Stevens said. "The site selection group said all three cities were capable of producing the Games. Cleveland, we felt, is where we could really make a difference, and the total package was the best choice." [1] http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/08/gay_games_on_despite_break_wit.html [2] http://gaygames.com/index.php?id=18&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=41&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=89e2dd8ad2
Contributer: Elise Bish

Meghan McCain talks dirty, sexy politics – and Palin
John McCain's daughter says in a new book released Tuesday that Sarah Palin brought drama, stress and uncertainty to her father's failed bid for the presidency in 2008, but she doesn't blame the vice presidential nominee for losing the race. In "Dirty Sexy Politics," Meghan McCain portrays conflicted feelings about her father's surprise choice for a running mate. She reveals that she called Palin "the Time Bomb." "I was waiting for her to explode," McCain wrote. "There was a fine line between genius and insanity, they say, and choosing her as the running mate was starting to seem like the definition of that line." But McCain also praises the Palins as "nice and down-to-Earth" and says she was impressed with Palin's ability to captivate and inspire women. In the end, she writes, her father lost because "Obama was unbeatable" - the electorate and the news media were too enamored with a fresh new face who represented a monumental change from then-President George W. Bush. McCain, 25, lives in Phoenix and is the oldest of John and Cindy McCain's four adult children. John McCain also has three children from his first marriage. In her book, released by Hyperion, Meghan McCain shows an itch to adopt her father's persona as a "maverick" delivering "straight talk." She calls religious conservatives the "intolerant far right," evoking her father's famous remark a decade ago that GOP religious leaders were "agents of intolerance." The elder McCain has since backed off from those statements. Meghan McCain chronicles her struggle to fit in with the Republican Party, and she challenges the party to focus on promoting individual liberties while being more inclusive. "Being Republican is not a lifestyle choice," she writes. "And it doesn't mean you can't be young, or gay, or black, or anything else." John McCain said he was proud of his daughter and enjoyed the book. "Reality is that we don't agree on every issue, but that makes it even more interesting conversation around the dinner table," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Contributer: The Associated Press

Closing the hospital loopholes for gay families
Equality in hospital visitation policies is not a controversial issue. That’s what seems apparent from the 427 comments received during the just ended public comment period on the proposed regulation to implement President Obama’s hospital visitation memorandum. The April 15 memorandum called for an end to discrimination against gay couples in the visitation policies of hospitals receiving federal Medicaid and Medicare funding. While the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can provide no breakdown of how many comments were for or against the proposed change, a random search of more than 10 percent of the comments found complete support for the requirement –and considerable incredulity that it is even necessary to establish such a rule. But it is necessary, as illustrated by one commenter who told of being in a serious automobile accident just last October. He said his partner was barred from being with him, even though the partner had a health power of attorney. It was only after the partner, following a shift change in the nursing staff, identified himself as the unconscious man’s brother that he was allowed in. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and two other groups have made known they believe some changes are warranted in the proposed language, published in June, particularly with respect to instances where the patient is incapacitated. But there’s no guarantee HHS will adopt Lambda’s suggestions, and actual enforcement of the president’s directive is still months –and another public comment period— away. HHS’s Office of Clinical Standards and Quality will make the decision on final language of the hospital visitation rule, said Donald McLeod, an HHS spokesperson. It will do so based on the comments made by the public, he said, “but that is only a part of the process.” “We look at all available evidence,” said McLeod, noting that it can include things such as journal articles. In its August 27 letter, submitted for the hospital visitation policy comment period, Lambda, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), and the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), a public interest law firm, directed HHS to a monograph produced this year by the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission is a private, not-for-profit organization that operates an accreditation service for thousands of hospitals nationwide. The Joint Commission publication suggests hospitals define “family” to “explicitly include any individual that plays a significant role in the patient’s life such as spouses, domestic partners, significant others (of both different-sex and same-sex), and other individuals not legally related to the patient.” The Commission advises hospitals to “Use this expanded definition in all hospital policies, including those addressing visitation, access to chosen support person, identification of surrogate decision-makers and advance directives.” The proposed rule that HHS published in the Federal Register with little fanfare June 28 does not currently make explicit this definition of family. Its language distinguishes between “immediate family members” and “visitors designated by the patient.” But it does make clear that the visitation privileges available to the “visitors designated by the patient” should be “no more restrictive than those that immediate family members would enjoy.” Interestingly, although the clear purpose of the president’s memorandum was to end discrimination against LGBT families in regards to hospital visitation rights, the 6,200-word proposed rule never mentions the word “gay,” mentions “same-sex domestic partner” only three times, and mentions “sexual orientation” only four times. In fact, while LGBT activists hailed the president’s directive as a dramatic step toward equal protection of the law, to the uninitiated reader, the proposed rule might very well read like an unremarkable clarification “to ensure the visitation rights of all patients,” as the summary states. One concern Lambda, GLMA, and NHeLP express is that the proposed rule allows that there may be “rare cases” in which hospitals should have the right to require a visitor to produce “written documentation,” such as durable powers of attorney and healthcare proxies, from some visitors, such as LGBT partners. “We believe that, at a minimum,” reads the proposed rule, “a hospital …may not require documentation where the patient has the capacity to speak or otherwise communicate for himself or herself; where patient representation automatically follows from a legal relationship recognized under State law (for example, a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, or a parent-child relationship); or where requiring documentation would discriminate on an impermissible basis.” But Lambda and the other groups say the proposed rule needs to go further and ensure that “only in the very rarest of cases” is written documentation required. As an example, said the Lambda letter, written documentation might be warranted when more than one person claims to be a patient’s spouse. “In all other cases,” said Lambda, “verbal representation of a family relationship recognized under the law of any state should suffice—as it does currently for all incapacitated heterosexual patients whose husband, wife, parent or adult child seeks access to the hospital bedside.” The proposed rule acknowledges that it is important for patients who are incapacitated to have a representative “who is likely to be especially familiar with the patient.” But the Lambda coalition says the rules do not adequately “address this common scenario” as it relates to LGBT patients and that they “definitely should.” “The Proposed Rules are silent regarding the circumstance in which LGBT patients and their families are perhaps most vulnerable—when a patient is incapacitated and has not previously designated in writing a health care agent or representative,” said the groups. “LGBT patients far too often experience discriminatory visitation denials even when they have designated an agent in writing, and patients who have not done so—a common circumstance—are even more vulnerable.” It was this scenario that President Obama referred to when he issued his memorandum last April. He cited the experience of a Washington State couple on vacation with their children in Florida in 2007. While there, one of the women, Lisa Pond, collapsed with an aneurysm and was taken by ambulance to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. When her partner, Janice Langbehn, arrived at the hospital with their children, the hospital refused to let them see Pond. The hospital continued to refuse visitation even after Langbehn had a friend fax Pond’s health proxy to the hospital. The Lambda coalition says the rules should be revised to ensure written documentation of a relationship is not required when a visitor “identifies herself or himself as the patient’s adult partner, parent, child, or as playing a significant role in the patient’s life.” And the coalition says written documentation should not be required when “patient representation automatically follows from a legal relationship recognized under the laws of any state.” The Lambda coalition submitted its 26-page comment to HHS on the last day of public comment, August 27. As of Tuesday, it was still not posted on the HHS site where the public comments can be read. (Go to www.regulations.gov, choose Public Submissions, and keyword search CMS-2010-0207.) The letter can be viewed, however, at lambdalegal.org. Now that the comment period has closed, HHS will write a “final rule” --a process that takes several months. The final rule is then published and another public comment period ensues, according to McLeod. “Finally, after a couple more months,” said McLeod, “we will post a final decision.” © 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.
Contributer: Lisa Keen

Ask the Expert: “We don’t want kids at our wedding! Help?”
Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don't know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your etiquette questions for your gay wedding by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com [1]. Q We love kids, but my partner and I don’t want them in or at our wedding—both the ceremony and the reception. We have a few reasons: We don’t want any babies wailing or children making random, distracting noises during the ceremony. We want all our guests to have fun and let loose and not have to watch their kids at the reception. We’re serving alcohol at the reception, and we don’t want to worry about the legal issues of the older children being around it. We’re inviting about 100 guests, and I’d say there are at least 15 couples with children. How do we politely tell them we don’t want their kids at our wedding? A Babies and children are a blessing and can bring a youthful innocence to a wedding day, but they can be an awfully big distraction at special events, when they’re not properly attended to. If you’d rather your guests attend to you and the celebration at hand, by all means, make it an adults-only affair. Here’s the thing about weddings. Proper wedding etiquette dictates that the people addressed on the envelope of the wedding invitation are the only ones invited. Thus, if you don’t write The Palladino Family or Mrs. and Mrs. Palladino and children, you haven’t invited any kids. Likewise, if you don’t write Kirsten Palladino and guest, but instead write Kirsten Palladino, you’ve only invited me and you’ve indicated that I shouldn’t show up with any random guest. All those rules aside, not everyone knows proper wedding etiquette. Follow the above invitation guidelines, and you’ll still get a few response cards from a parent, his partner and their full brood. And that’s where you’ll get the opportunity to say something. If you get a response card indicating that more than you invited plan to attend, call the sender and delicately explain (but don’t beat around the bush) that your wedding day is going to be an adults-only affair and you and your partner aren’t allowing children. And you hope they understand and can still make it. I’ve known people to actually have “adult-only reception to follow” printed on the bottom of their wedding invitations, but I think it can be tacky and perceived as hostile by some guests. The other way to spread the word is through strategic comments to your friends without children who talk a lot to those who do. “We’re so excited about our adults-only wedding. It’s really going to be a grand affair. I hope so-and-so doesn’t mind that we’re not inviting any children.” That kind of talk is sure to get back to your other friends—and hopefully not ruffle any feathers. You’ve probably considered by now that some of your guests with children won’t come if they can’t bring their kids. Not to make a statement, but for the simple fact that decent childcare can be hard to come by, especially if they’re traveling to another state for your wedding. If their presence is more important to you, consider hiring a nanny for your wedding to keep all the children occupied in a separate room nearby. As for the older children and booze, talk to your caterer or bartender about your concerns. If they need to check IDs to make you feel more comfortable, they’re your employees for the day. Kirsten Palladino is the editor in chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at http://www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer couples a guide to their weddings, a social community and a marketplace of vetted LGBT-friendly wedding vendors. Follow Equally Wed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/equallywed [3]. [1] http://www.365gay.commailto:etiquette@equallywed.com [2] http://www.equallywed.com/ [3] http://www.twitter.com/equallywed
Contributer: Kirsten Palladino

Archie Comics welcomes first gay character
There has been a number of gay characters in comic books since Marvel Comics opened the door with Northstar in 1992.  But now a new level of acceptance has been reached--beloved comic series, Archie, is adding its first gay character. On September 1, Riverdale High will be introduced to Kevin Keller [1], the hunky gay blonde with a V-neck and perfectly coiffed hair.  Archie Comics [2] Co-CEO John Goldwater said, "The introduction of Kevin is just about keeping the world of Archie Comics current and inclusive. Archie's hometown of Riverdale has always been a safe world for everyone." Kevin will first appear in Veronica #202.  His first story line will solidify his sexuality, finding a polite way to turn down the persistent come-ons of Veronica.  Kevin even entices Jughead by challenging him to a burger eating contest at Pop’s Chocklit Shoppe.  At least we know Kevin can handle large amounts of meat. The introduction of Kevin Keller marks the first gay character in the series' 69-year history. [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/archie-and-the-gang-welcome-first-gay-character/article1690400/ [2] http://www.yousaytoo.com/archie-comics-welcomes-its-first-gay-character-2/379578
Contributer: Elise Bish

Withers: Better opposition is needed to take down Diaz
[1] Anyone remember Omar from The Wire [2]? The gay stick-up artist uttered an astute line after a fire fight. "When you come at the king, you best not miss." Sounds like some political witticism Lyndon Johnson used when he was  Master of the Senate [3].Ruben Diaz is no king. He's just a homophobic New York politician in need of an electoral smack down. Fight Back New York wants to make this happen, but they are going have to come up with better tactics. The organization recently published 10 Truths about Ruben, [4] and the Queerty [5] people describe the list perfectly. It's dumb. Decide for yourself. 1. Ruben Diaz was investigated by the FBI 2. He was arrested for possession of heroin and marijuana 3. Ruben Diaz was only member of the New York Senate to vote against the ethics reform bill 4. He was the only Democrat in the New York Senate to vote to shut down the state government 5. Ruben Diaz refused to meet with his own constituents 6. He compared the use of stem cells for medical research to the Nazis using “the ashes of the Jews to make bars of soap.” 7. Ruben Diaz appropriated monies totaling $250,000 to an organization he founded, the Christian Community Benevolent Association 8. He also appropriated monies totaling $1,120,000 to the Hispanic Federation, of which the Christian Community Benevolent Association is a part (see #7) 9. Ruben Diaz defended former Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who was expelled from the Senate due to a conviction for misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend 10. Ruben Diaz and three other Democrats refused to support the Majority Leader, only to change their minds after he "offered them perks and committee chairmanships." The two things that put him beyond the pale are 6 and 10 (only fellow worms support Monserrate [6]).  Everything else makes Diaz an average Albany politician. That's not enough to send him packing. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Ruben-Diaz-top.jpg [2] http://www.hbo.com/the-wire/index.html [3] http://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0394528360 [4] http://truthaboutdiaz.com/truths [5] http://www.queerty.com/the-lame-dirt-fight-back-new-york-found-on-ny-sen-ruben-diaz-20100830/ [6] http://www.365gay.com/blog/031110-fighting-back-against-monserrate/
Contributer: James Withers