Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Transgendered get Protections in Pennsylvania
http://www.gfn.com/news/story.phtml?sid=14143
Transgendered get Protections in Pennsylvania
July 30, 2003
Gfn.com News
Pennsylvania's governor has signed an executive order barring state agencies from discriminating against employees based on their gender identity, adding transgendered people to the list of those whose rights are protected.
According to a statement released by Gov. Ed Rendell, the order adds "gender identity or expression" to the list that already includes race, religion, age, sexual orientation, and other criteria.
See also:
Hawaii Moves to Add Transgendered to Hate-Crimes Law
Amended Hate-Crimes Bill Becomes Law in Hawaii
Bringing Up Baby, the Gay Way
Gay Activists Slam Bush For Rose Garden Remarks on Marriage
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1143/topstories.htm
Gay Activists Slam Bush For Rose Garden Remarks on Marriage
By Ann Rostow
The big news from last Wednesday was not what President Bush said about marriage. It was what the GLBT community did in response. The reaction, an instantaneous backlash by every major activist group in the country, reflected a sea change in our community’s position on same-sex marriage. There is now no doubt about it. America is on the verge of an all-or-nothing fight for marriage equality, and the gay community is prepared to wage a full-out war.
On Wednesday, Bush gave one of his rare news conferences, the eighth at a point in his Presidency when his predecessors had staged dozens of such events.
What do you think about homosexuality, one reporter asked blandly?
“Yeah, I’m mindful we’re all sinners,” said the President. “And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor’s eye when they got a log in their own. I think it’s very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.”
Bush went on to comment about the subject du jour, same-sex marriage. “On the other hand,” he said, “that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that’s really where the issue is headed here in Washington. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or another. And we’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
None of this is new.
Bush is already on record with the idea that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. References to Bible stories, sinners, and use of the words like “sanctity,” are part and parcel of the religious freight he has consistently loaded onto his public statements. The vague idea that traditional marriage should be “codified one way or another,” and the equally gauzy notion that “lawyers are looking into” the matter, are well in keeping with the President’s effort to mollify the right wing without being forced to support the draconian constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Indeed the whole exchange should have caused nary a ripple in the gay news pond. After all, just a few weeks ago, when asked about the aforementioned constitutional amendment, Bush replied that he didn’t know if it was “necessary as yet.” That response suggested that such an amendment could be “necessary” in the future, but no one from the gay community pushed him on the implication.
This time, the reaction was unprecedented.
Within an hour or so, press releases were streaming through the Internet from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force, the National Stonewall Democrats, the ACLU, Equality California, and others.
Organizations that usually respond a day or two after events, drafted outraged reactions within minutes.
Community groups that have shied away from insisting on marriage rights, blasted Bush for his opposition.
GLAAD urged the media to subject his comments to close scrutiny, particularly his use of the religious expression “sanctity of marriage,” in the context of a civil right.
The Task Force said his implication that gays are “sinners” was “unbecoming.”
HRC and others questioned his knowledge of federal law. How can you codify something that was already passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton in 1996? “We ask the President,” wrote HRC’s Political Director, Winnie Stachelberg, “to explain to the American people why [the Defense of Marriage Act] does not already meet the objective he set this morning.”
And through it all, national activists began doing something they’ve been hesitant to do in the past. Standing up for the right to marry.
The President, wrote HRC’s Stachelberg “seems to be working to strengthen laws that deny more than 1,000 federal rights, benefits and protections to law-abiding tax-paying gay and lesbian Americans.”
It’s important, wrote GLAAD’s John Sonego, “that the media carefully scrutinize and hold up for debate President Bush’s invocation of religion as the fundamental rationale for excluding same-sex couples and families from the protections of marriage.”
“Love is not a sin,” wrote LLEGO’s Martin Ornelas-Quintero, “and the President should not distort spiritual belief to support inequality. It’s important that the state simply recognize same-sex couples in the same way that it recognizes opposite-sex couples. Religion is not a part of that.”
But, you ask, hasn’t the GLBT community always supported same-sex marriage?
The answer is yes and no. Yes in theory, but no in official policy. While GLBT lawyers have been fighting for marriage rights in the courts for the last decade, the accepted political strategy has been to deflect the issue from same-sex marriage, to other, more popular objectives.
“This is not about same-sex marriage,” gay activists remind hesitant city councils on the eve of domestic partner votes. “This bill will be used as an excuse to discriminate,” gay campaigners told the California electorate during the debate over same-sex marriage in early 2000. “Don’t toy with the state constitution,” our allies told the Hawaii voters in 1998. The strategy has been-say anything, but don’t appear to fight for same-sex marriage, because polls tell us it’s a losing proposition.
Things have changed in the last eight weeks. Same-sex marriage is legal in Ontario, British Columbia, and within a fairly short time, it will be legal throughout Canada. Dozens of American citizens have married in these territories. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have a right to autonomy and respect in their private decisions, striking the worst anti-gay precedent off the books of American case law. And any day now, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is expected-perhaps-to legalize same-sex marriage in the Bay State.
In response, the right wing has gone ballistic, demanding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and pledging to hold Bush’s feet to the fire in the 2004 election. Poll numbers reflect a hopefully-brief decline in support for gay rights from the post-Lawrence American public. People are nervous. Some pundits have urged the gay community to sit tight and consolidate their summer victories before reaching out for the gold ring of legal marriage.
But if there was any question about the gay community’s political strategy, Wednesday’s onslaught of impassioned denunciations laid it to rest. Apparently, we are not going to sit back and let a backwash of anti-gay sentiment destroy our chance for marriage rights and full equality. In a preliminary sign of our new resolve, the Human Rights Campaign—our most pragmatic political analysts—last week launched a drive seeking one million signatures on an online marriage petition, at www.millionformarriage.org. “Millions of Americans already believe that equal protection under the law means equal civil marriage rights for everyone,” wrote HRC’s National Field Director Seth Kilbourn. “It’s time to make those voices heard.”
Clearly, our voices are going to be heard in the next election, and as the fight for marriage intensifies after (knock on wood) a positive ruling from Massachusetts. And clearly, George Bush is not going to be able to spend the next year on a fence, tossing a kind word to the gays on one side, while winking at the Christian right on the other. What’s not clear is which side he’ll wind up on after he falls from the fence. The gay reaction to his comparatively-routine comments must have shocked him. Will he be more deferential? Or will he give up on ever pleasing us and give the conservative right his support for the constitutional amendment they crave so desperately? Time will tell.
Posted July 31, 2003
should we conclude based on this link that Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio are the top Texas g/l locations?
http://www.txtriangle.com/ad/
emit...if TTN didn't do web broadcasting through MeTV what would be there other possibilities? Do you know? Thanks
I'll follow that post up with this question....if TTN were to target 10 cities what is your guess who those cities would be? Doesn't have to be all 10, just where do you think TTN will target as their top 10 cities?
interesting expansion news on Tennis Channel...
http://www.tvweek.com/news/web80103.html
Tennis Channel Expands by 16 Markets: The recently launched Tennis Channel has added distribution in 16 new markets, expanding its current footprint to 18 states and more than 8 million basic cable homes.
The newest distribution includes Time Warner Cable systems in Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Memphis, Tenn., Waco, Texas, and Greensboro and Winston-Salem, N.C.; Cox Cable systems in Baton Rouge, La., and Pensacola, Fla.; and Knology systems in Knoxville, Tenn., Charleston, S.C., Panama City, Fla., Huntsville and Montgomery, Ala., and Augusta, Columbus and West Point Valley, Ga.
an example of how news is put out with a station being carried by TWC..
http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=1373892
Watch Us On Time Warner Cable
Thursday,July24,2003,2:51 PM
Email to a Friend
Printer Friendly Version
PORTLAND – ABC 8 WMTW and Time Warner Cable of Maine announced the launch of News 8 WMTW on Time Warner Channel 9, a new 24 hour local news channel that will continuously air News 8 WMTW’s daily news broadcasts throughout the day, making local news more accessible and convenient to customers.
The service begins on Monday, July 28 at 7:30 a.m. News 8 WMTW’s four weekday news broadcasts, 6:00 a.m., noon, 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., will be replayed throughout the day on Channel 9.
The schedule is as follows:
The 6:00 a.m. newscast will air from 7:30 a.m. through 1:00 p.m.
The noon newscast will air from 1:00 p.m. through 7:00 p.m.
The 6:00 p.m. newscast will air from 7:00 p.m. through midnight.
The 11:00 p.m. newscast will air from Midnight through 7:30 a.m. (the following day).
“We are excited about our new partnership with ABC 8 WMTW and feel that offering a local 24 hour news channel provides our customers with the value added convenience of getting their local news at anytime throughout the day,” said Keith Burkley, division president, Time Warner Cable of Maine. “We are always looking for new and innovative ways to provide our customers with more choices and convenience.”
“As part of our continuing effort to build ABC 8 WMTW’s award winning news product we are pleased to have teamed up with Time Warner Cable to offer the market’s first 24/7 television news viewing opportunity,” said David Kaufman, executive vice president of WMTW Broadcast Group, LLC.
WMTW Broadcast Group is comprised of ABC 8 WMTW Television, Newsradio WMTW 870-AM and 1470-AM; 106.7-FM; WTHT-FM 107.5; WMEK-FM 99.9 and 96.9-FM; and WMTW.com.
Time Warner Cable of Maine provides cable service to 110,000 customers in Northern and Southern Maine. Time Warner Cable owns and manages the most technologically advanced, best-clustered cable television operations in 27 states. It is a division of AOL Time Warner Inc.
Gaining acceptance
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/08-03/08-03-03/c01li077.htm
Gaining acceptance
Trio of local gay men applaud new inroads on television
By Lisa Palmer, Standard-Times correspondent
Tom O'Brien takes pride in this gay moment.
The current wave of gay relationships playing on the small screen is a sign that "homosexual relationships are gaining acceptance in society," he says.
New TV shows like Bravo's "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Boy Meets Boy," the first of a handful of programs debuting in the 2003 and 2004 season that feature gay relationships, reflect how gay and straight ways of life are integrating.
And, based on a recent discussion with Mr. O'Brien and other gay men at The Java Bean in New Bedford, folks shouldn't expect the media-storm of gay images to ebb any time soon. Growing support for openly gay television programming and advertising confirms that if history repeats itself, there's a whole lot more in store.
Mr. O'Brien, who is the program coordinator for Taunton-based Project Empower, an HIV advocacy group, likens the ripple effect of media interest in gays to any minority that has gained acceptance in mainstream society.
"It's a lot like colored people going into places where they were forbidden before the 1960s, and like the once unacceptable marriages between interracial couples," the 43-year-old says, adding that the more exposure people have to another way of life, such as gay relationships, the more they will accept it.
"Opponents back then --church, state, and society --used the same arguments against those minority groups as they use today against gays," he says. Mr. O'Brien notes that racial relationships many people now consider ordinary once faced fierce resistance because they were unorthodox at the time. "Those movements didn't collapse, and are now commonplace," he says.
New television programming like "Queer Eye" may not be as dramatic or socially important as the films "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" or "In the Heat of the Night," but current attitudes will be challenged, he maintains.
"The gay community wants people to understand there's not just one norm," Mr. O'Brien says.
In "Queer Eye," which premiered two weeks ago, five gay men, who are cast in stereotypical roles, transform pathetic, if not downright uncouth, straight men into stylish gents, or metrosexuals. In the end, the newly renovated chaps, who the "Fab Five" hope will develop a lasting affection for shopping and grooming, appear greatly improved.
Last Thursday another talked-about show, "Boy Meets Boy," became America's first reality dating show for gay men. The game's deceptive element, and potential humiliation for the contestant, involves a cruel twist: A straight man is among the gay guys and the bachelor boy doesn't know it. Producers of "Boy" say the surprise element will confront "preconceived notions of what is considered gay and straight behavior."
Donald Tremblay observes that the new TV shows may increase comfort levels between straight men and gay men.
"Acceptance of gays on TV may seem speeded-up, but the gay rights movement really began in the 1960s," says Mr. Tremblay, 52, an HIV educator. "Back then, the police were called in if two gay men were dancing together at a bar … It's all a matter of people getting used to (gay relationships) and seeing it more often."
Antonio, 29, who preferred not to give his last name, doesn't like all the media hype, particularly, and says he's jealous that the homosexual repartee is being revealed to pop culture.
"You can hardly turn on the TV without seeing someone who's gay," he says.
"It's like our private (gay) culture has gone public."
However, Antonio says that by watching gay friendships or lovers on TV, people will notice few differences between gay or lesbian relationships and traditional relationships.
"A gay man can be playful, flirt, and be friends with a straight man, but a certain line wouldn't be crossed," he says. "It's a new form of friendship for many people."
Mr. O'Brien thinks that Americans are changing their minds about the role of gay relationships in society because more gays and lesbians have been coming out of the closet.
"More people know someone who is gay -- a friend, a family member, co-worker, or neighbor. And, the more exposure people have to alternative relationships, the more they will accept it. Everyone fears the unknown," he says.
As a movement, he imagines gay rights may be catching on faster, though, in America's capitalist society because "there's money in the gay community," says Mr. O'Brien. "Acceptance is the dollar."
Marketers have discovered this nugget of gold, too.
"Most gay couples are DINKs (double-income, no kids)," he says. "Current marketing trends suggest that this growing population with disposable income can no longer be ignored."
"In any fight or struggle, money is power," he says.
This story appeared on Page C1 of The Standard-Times on August 3, 2003.
Reality show with gay twist is straight entertainment
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1059816738160790.xm...
Reality show with gay twist is straight entertainment
08/03/03
John Petkovic
Plain Dealer Reporter
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" has caught everyone's eye, gay and straight.
Last week's installment of the show scored 2.8 million viewers - an amazing figure for tiny cable arts network Bravo. The success of "Queer" also has opened everyone's eye to "gay TV." But is it really a gay show? On the surface, maybe. But not really - and that's what gives it universal appeal.
The show subjects a style-challenged heterosexual slob to the whims of the Fab Five - a quintet of gay men specializing in disciplines, from fashion to culinary arts. "Queer" operates on the notion that these dandies will save the day - since gay men are so much more stylish than straight men.
(Hey, wouldn't it be so much more fabulous if "Queer" blurred the lines a little and one of the gay men resembled a football player - the ultimate hetero icon?)
Sure, the show is titillating, especially when the chattering blond fashion maven delivers catty quips on bad hair and knee-high boots. But that isn't the most interesting thing about "Queer."
What drives poor saps to subject themselves to the stylish whims of others? Is style an individual act or something you buy off the racks? And if it can be obtained in five textbook steps, does it really mean anything?
Oh well, the show airs at 10 p.m. Tuesday.
Let's punk around
Feel lucky today, punk? You should. This week, you have two chances to punk around.
At noon Tuesday, the Vans Warped Tour brings a herd of punk bands -Rancid, Pennywise, the Ataris, etc. - to Tower City Amphitheater, 351 Canal Road, Cleveland. $30.75.
Or you can see a band that perfected the style - the Pagans. At 8:30 p.m. Saturday, the legendary Cleveland punk quartet is re-forming to play the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.
The Pagans and the rock hall? Yep. In the 1970s, the band subscribed to the credo, "Live fast, die young and leave a good-looking corpse." And while they didn't die, they released hard-buzzing 45s that celebrated nihilism and nowheresville. Joining them are Tin Huey and the Pink Holes. $10. Call 216-241-5555 for both concerts.
Beyond Mr. Potato Head
The transformation of the spud is complete. First, they were a poverty meal. Then came Mr. Potato Head. Then Devo wore them. Now, they're works of art.
The 107th edition of the Cuyahoga County Fair - three years were skipped, 1932, 1942, 1943, because of the Great Depression and World War II - boasts a juried exhibition of fruit and vegetable sculptures crafted out of spuds, yams and other yummies. That's a far cry from the fair's 1893 debut, when potatoes were merely culinary sidekicks.
The sculptures make up but one of 5,000 sideshows and exhibitions at the fair, from racing ducks and cute pig contests to tractor pulls and carnival rides. The fair - at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds, 164 Eastland Road, Berea - opens at 10 a.m. tomorrow and runs through next Sunday. Hours are noon to 11 p.m., except Thursday, when it starts at 10 a.m. $10. Call 440-239-3247.
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
jpetkovic@plaind.com, 216-999-4556
© 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.
ok QBID show us your stuff!....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=1804&e=2&u=/washpost/20030...
Microsoft Millionaires Grapple With Wealth
By Blaine Harden, Washington Post Staff Writer
SEATTLE -- Randall Thatcher was a gofer -- fetching dry cleaning for a boss he loathed -- when he received his first stock options.
The year was 1987, the company was Microsoft Corp., and Thatcher, a 28-year-old marketing assistant, had no idea what a stock option was. It grants a right to buy stock at a fixed price over a limited time. If the market price soars during that time, a few thousand options can turn into tons of money.
Thatcher also didn't know that Microsoft's president, Bill Gates (news - web sites), was offering options to all full-time employees, even seething, ill-informed gofers.
"I was so indignant about my job, I was going to quit," Thatcher said. "I guess it's lucky I didn't."
By swallowing his pride, tossing his options statements in a desk drawer and soldiering on at Microsoft for 10 more years, Thatcher joined one of the iconic clubs of the 20th century. He became a Microsoft millionaire and retired at 38.
He lives now in downtown Seattle on the top floor of a building with splendid views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. He takes daily banjo lessons, does office work for his church and leads children on tours of a local park. Whenever he and his wife, Shari, feel like it, they catch an afternoon movie. They meet quarterly with financial advisers and expect never to work again.
American history is defined, in part, by the trials and triumphs of its young people. In the Great Depression, a quarter-million teenage hobos rode freight trains and scratched for jobs. In the 1960s, student protesters shut universities and speeded the end of a hated war. In the high-tech boom of the 1990s, legions of geeks and their support staff wandered into wealth.
Arguably, the largest single legion served its time -- and secured its fortune -- in the eastern suburbs of Seattle. That is where an estimated 10,000 Microsoft employees became millionaires during the era of options.
For Microsoft, that era formally ends in September, when the company stops issuing options to employees. The de facto end, however, came three years ago, when Microsoft's stock price tumbled. Options issued since then are all but worthless.
Yet as options recede into history, the wealth that they rained on Seattle continues to percolate -- in the lives of Microsofties who are still learning how to be rich and in the character of this city where much of the money is still being spent, invested and given away.
Like Nothing Before
How much money are we talking here?
All told, about $30 billion in options on software company stock, nearly all of it from Microsoft, were exercised in greater Seattle from 1995 to 2002, said Roberta Pauer, an economist for the Washington State Employment Security Department.
If $30 billion were distributed evenly to the 3.3 million people in the Puget Sound area, it would come to nearly $10,000 each. Nearly all of it, though, went to the people employed full time by Microsoft in the late 1990s.
Keep in mind, this is option money only. Gates, the world's richest man (with $40 billion), never received options. Neither did Microsoft's co-founder, Paul G. Allen, the fourth-richest man (with $20.1 billion), or Microsoft's chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, the 16th-richest man ($11.1 billion), according to Forbes. Their wealth is based on the actual shares of stock they own in the company.
In Seattle, option wealth alone was plenty to pack a destabilizing wallop.
"It knocked our economy out of kilter," Pauer said. "You got really high levels of consumer spending -- houses, cars, boats -- that were not sustainable. You got all kind of investments that were predicated on a fantasy that this flow of money would go on forever."
To understand the kilter-knocking power of option money here, consider what happened in 1999:
It was the year before the high-tech bubble burst. Across the country, investors were somewhat dementedly bidding up Microsoft stock, engorging the already swollen profits of option holders. The stock price spiked to its all-time, split-adjusted high of $59.56. (The stock was worth 10 cents on that basis when the company went public in 1986.)
Before the year ended, about 8,000 Microsoft workers cashed in options worth about $8 billion for an average payout of $1 million each, said Dick Conway, a Seattle economist who consults for Microsoft.
That was 150 percent of the total annual payroll for the 99,000 employees then working at Boeing Co., the largest employer in Washington state.
"Nothing like this has happened before, and it will probably never happen again," Conway said.
A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment on Conway's estimates, although the economist said he has run them by company officials and was told they sound reasonable.
In announcing last month that it will stop issuing options, Microsoft addressed what has become a major irritant for employees hired after the boom. Their options are worthless and, unlike their veteran colleagues, they have had little chance of getting rich. The company will soon issue restricted stock to its 50,000 employees worldwide. Those shares can be sold in the future if employees stay at Microsoft.
Infected by Wealth
Beginning in the mid-1990s, as Microsoft employees cashed out more and more options, greater Seattle went into a delirium of high-end consumption.
Workmen invaded city neighborhoods, gutting and rebuilding thousands of old houses that offered views of water or mountains. In the eastern suburbs, monstrous new homes -- Microsoft mansions -- encircled lakes and marched into the foothills of the Cascades.
Suddenly, there were waiting lists for yachts, Ferraris and Steinway pianos. Newly purchased horses far outnumbered stalls in local stables. Soaring new-car sales merged with 15 percent population growth to create traffic congestion that ranked among the worst in the nation. Seattle rose to No. 2, after Silicon Valley, in venture capital investment. Much of the money went to dot-com companies that went broke. The number of mental health counselors jumped by 55 percent, according to the state health department.
As wealth infected the polity, voters launched Seattle on its largest-ever public building spree: two sports stadiums, a city hall, an opera house, libraries, fire stations, schools, parks, community centers and housing for the elderly.
"There has never been a convergence of people and discretionary money in this region quite like it," said Lee Huntsman, provost and interim president at the University of Washington, which is in Seattle and has luxuriated in $284 million in donations from Microsoft, its executives, its employees and its investors since 1990.
When Microsoft options went underwater in 2000, however, so did the local economy. Seattle and Washington state sank into recession in early 2001, three months ahead of the rest of the nation. Even now, 21/2 years later, the economy still shows few signs of recovery. The state unemployment rate in June was 7.7 percent, third highest in the country.
Playing the Numbers
During the boom, nearly every full-time Microsoft employee set up a computer spreadsheet that, with the touch of one key, displayed a real-time accounting of his stock-option fortune.
Many employees fantasized about their "number," a hypothetical stock price that would make them forever rich.
"When I hit my number, there was this euphoria," remembered Randall Thatcher, who had risen in the company to a travel-weary international marketing manager. "We had more money than we ever thought we would have in our life."
Thatcher quit in 1997, as soon as his last options vested. (If he had stayed another two years, he said with a deep sigh, he would have tripled his fortune.)
With his wife, he took off and traveled around the world for a year. During that trip, which included a long stay in Burma, one of the poorest countries in the world, Thatcher was often blue.
"It was hard to reconcile the inequity of having tons of money and walking through squalor," he said.
Like Thatcher, a middle-class Mormon from the suburbs of Salt Lake City, most Microsoft workers grew up as distant strangers to serious money. They tended to be bright, hard working and goal oriented, but when they suddenly got rich, many of them became disoriented.
Local psychologists who have treated some of these people say it was -- and is -- common for them to be suspicious in relationships, fearing that they are being loved for their money. They sometimes also lord their wealth over lovers, relatives and friends.
"The moneyed partner can develop a sense of entitlement," a Seattle psychologist said. "They don't have to treat others as well or as politely as they are treated. The money gets others to put up with them."
There have been no systematic studies of how wealth has affected the options generation at Microsoft. But Stephen Goldbart, a San Francisco psychologist, has been treating and conducting seminars for thousands of the high-tech rich for eight years. He is co-founder of the Money, Meaning & Choices Institute, which coined the term "sudden wealth syndrome" and has worked with many people from Microsoft.
"Money creates all kinds of challenges for these people with their parents, siblings and friends," Goldbart said. "Many techies are not used to this emotional stuff, and it causes many of them to withdraw. They say, 'I'll just stay away from people.' " Typically, he said, these people go through a "fun and games period," a year or so of buying big-ticket toys and taking fancy vacations. Some people, he added, never move beyond narcissistic self-involvement with their money, but most do.
Here in Seattle, an organization created by the newly rich, called Social Venture Partners, has worked with hundreds of Microsoft people, teaching them how to give away money and sort out their values.
Each member commits to a minimum annual contribution of $5,500 for at least two years to join, and the organization strongly encourages members to work long hours with small local charities. Social Venture Partners is sometimes described as post-graduate training in philanthropy.
"Things and money can come to define you, even if you don't want it to happen," said Paul Shoemaker, executive director of the group and a former Microsoft employee who says he got semi-rich on options. "It takes a conscious choice to keep your feet on the ground."
Shoemaker said that most of the people who come to Social Venture Partners are worth from $5 million to $15 million.
Defined by Money
Even before he cashed out his Microsoft options in 2001, Gideon Rosenblatt felt himself sinking into a world defined by his money and what it could buy.
"We bought a big house in the suburbs and started a big remodeling process," said Rosenblatt, who met his wife, C.J., when they were both working at Microsoft. "We got pulled in by what we saw some of our friends doing."
Rosenblatt and his wife -- they have two boys, ages 2 and 4 -- became increasingly uncomfortable as their bank account grew.
"We felt like this money was an incredible gift -- a really weird historical anomaly -- and we didn't want to be stupid and squander it," said Rosenblatt, 40, who started at Microsoft in 1991.
Having sorted out what he wanted from his money, Rosenblatt quit his Microsoft job. At a drastically lower salary, he became executive director of One/Northwest, a nonprofit online networking group that links together 60,000 environmental activists in the region.
As for the suburban house, he and his wife decided they had better things to do than to make design decisions about how to maximize their views of Puget Sound. So, they sold the big house at a loss and bought a 2,000-square-foot, viewless house in a middle-class Seattle neighborhood. "We decided our top job was raising two great kids," Rosenblatt said.
He and his wife met with financial advisers and spent many hours writing a family credo -- a one-page set of "Rosenblatt family values." It does not say a single word about money. Instead, it talks about "hard work," "passion" and "leaving the world a better place than you found it."
To that end, Rosenblatt said he and his wife have decided to limit their sons' inheritance. The couple is now deciding how much to give to philanthropy and how much to leave for their sons.
"We definitely want our kids to work and not just at a dilettante level," he said. "We want them to have to struggle."
Like nearly everyone interviewed for this story, Rosenblatt said that in trying to understand his own values, Bill Gates has been an inspiring role model. Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (news - web sites), with assets of $24 billion, Gates is giving away hundreds of millions of dollars a year to improve health conditions in the developing world.
"I respect him and his discipline about philanthropy," Rosenblatt said.
There is no way of knowing exactly how much money Microsoft millionaires are giving away. But there are many indications that it is a lot. Since the late 1990s, per-capita giving to greater Seattle's United Way campaign has led the nation. In a 2001 ranking of all American cities, Seattle ranked a close second, behind New York, in total annual contributions to the United Way.
C.J. Rosenblatt, incidentally, still works part time in the marketing department at Microsoft.
In the post-boom argot of company veterans, she is a "volunteer," which is to say that her salary is not the point.
"I think of working at Microsoft now as my nonprofit," said C.J. Rosenblatt, who adds that she will sort out a more appropriate philanthropy when her sons get a little older. "It is the stuff I do so my brain doesn't develop cobwebs."
Randall Thatcher said he would go back to work, but only if he absolutely had no choice.
Since he left Microsoft, he and his wife have been careful not to overspend. They left the company with a smaller nest egg than many early retirees -- they say it is about $2 million. They own one car, a hot-pink 1979 Volkswagen beetle. He rarely buys new clothes and gets around town on a 1956 Vespa.
"We are not crazy, mad rich," Shari Thatcher said. "We are beer-and-pretzels rich."
Their friends, particularly people still working at Microsoft, sometimes ask them if they are bored. They say no, but they do worry.
"You hope, with all the discretionary time, that you don't completely waste it," Randall Thatcher said. "Some days I do. Most days I don't."
jarvis c...yes but I don't remember him calling gays sinners.
Butch, Butch Bush!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/opinion/03DOWD.html?ex=1060488000&en=19cf5f07b16dc167&ei=5...
Butch, Butch Bush!
By MAUREEN DOWD
ASHINGTON
Let's get it straight. The president and the pope aren't riding the new gay wave.
"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman," said President Bush last week. "And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that." Trying to add a tolerant note to an intolerant policy, he allowed that he was "mindful that we're all sinners."
Last time I checked, we had separation of church and state, so I don't know why the president is talking about sin, or why he is implying that gays who want to make a permanent commitment in a world full of divorce and loneliness are sinners.
If we follow Mr. Bush's logic, shouldn't we have a one-strike-and-you're-out constitutional amendment: no marriage for gays, but no second marriage for straights who prove they're not up to it?
The Vatican, always eager to erase lines between church and state, warned Catholic lawmakers it would be "gravely immoral" to vote for gay marriage or gay adoption. Such preaching seems tinny coming after revelations about the scope of homosexuality in the priesthood.
Until last week's denunciations, this had been a giddy Summer of Gays. First the Supreme Court blessing. Then Hollywood's raft of gay-themed projects, from J.Lo's lesbian turn in "Gigli" to the Bravo reality shows "Boy Meets Boy" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
"Queer Eye," the summer makeover hit, on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, features five gay guys who swoop in to give the Cinderfella treatment to unexfoliated straight guys, while scattering catty comments about their grooming and decor, such as, "This place screams women's correctional facility."
Maybe we should pity President Bush, stranded in his 50's world of hypermasculinity as his country goes gay and metrosexual (straight men with femme tastes like facials). Even the uptight Wal-Mart stores have expanded antidiscrimination policy to protect gay employees, and Bride's magazine is offering its first feature on same-sex weddings.
Maybe the president and his swaggering circle should think about a "Queer Eye" makeover. I asked a gay political reporter friend if he could offer some tips:
On the vice president: "I'd love to see Cheney with a pierced ear and a diamond stud. Or in a body-hugging black T-shirt, just for the pure sport of it.
"He needs new eyewear. With his big face and lantern jaw, he should lose those five-pound glasses. There are some fabulous frames out there.
"About his hair, all I can offer is my sincere regrets."
On the defense secretary: "In his own sort of antediluvian way, Rummy is a metrosexual. He works. He may be a warmonger, he may be intemperate, but just about every third woman I know wants him."
When it came to the president's possibilities, he got really excited: "Cowboy boots are fine for a certain kind of saucy backyard barbecue. But wearing them as often as he does, with those big belt buckles in the shape of Texas, it seems like he's trying too hard to prove his masculinity.
"He's definitely on the right track with low-stress weight lifting, but if he really wants a physique for the ages, a little yoga would help uncoil that gunslinger hunch.
"His hair is too tightly clipped. It looks painted on. And he's a huge squinter. The corner of his eyes are starting to look lined. Botox alert!
"He needs to dip into the merciful world of cosmetic products and avail himself of some kind of lip balm or gloss that helps mask the fact that he misplaced his lips somewhere.
"In open-collar shirts, he has a tiny little island of lost chest hair. It is too low to be a shaving oversight and too high to be a peripheral outgrowth of Alec Baldwin chest mat. It's neither fish nor fowl, so he should wax it out of there.
"Everything else about him just shouts `Butch, butch, butch!' But to throw Bush a metrosexual bone, whenever you see him walking off Air Force One with that little furball Barney under his arm, that canine puff of air that most drag queens wouldn't be caught dead with, it's like he's halfway to a Chanel rabbit fur handbag.
"Bush does such a good job of seeming blissfully laid back and vacantly bubbly that he might as well go blond. It might help with California's electoral votes, too."
Debate intensifies over same-sex unions
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6444854.htm
Posted on Sat, Aug. 02, 2003
Debate intensifies over same-sex unions
BY JUDITH GRAHAM
Chicago Tribune
DENVER - (KRT) - As a national debate over gay marriage escalated last week, a new tone of stridency crept into public discourse, reflecting growing political and social polarization over this issue.
Conservative groups warned gay activists they were pushing the limits of what would be tolerated. Gay advocates responded that a conservative plan to amend the Constitution, defining marriage as only legal between men and women, crosses an unacceptable line.
It is the scalding social issue of the moment, with both President Bush and Pope John Paul II weighing in against same-sex marriage, the Episcopal Church debating enormously controversial proposals to approve a gay bishop and bless same-sex unions, and new polls measuring the public pulse almost every day.
"I think people are tired of the way it's in our face all the time," said Phyllis Shaffley, president of the Eagle Forum, a national conservative group based in Alton, Ill.
Constant media coverage and two new, high-profile gay-themed television shows - one focused on dating, and the other highlighting gay-orchestrated makeovers of straight men - have only inflamed a sense that too much may be happening too soon for many people to assimilate.
In turn, that may be fueling a backlash against gay marriage, some pundits say, citing a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll that found evidence of a shift in public opinion. Some 48 percent of people expressed support for legalizing same-sex relations in the end-of-July poll, down from 60 percent in May.
"Americans have reached the limit of tolerance," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women of America, a conservative group based in Washington, D.C.
"We're not interested in what our neighbors down the street are doing in their homes; we don't want to pry. But people are beginning to realize that homosexual activists are not settling for tolerance but demanding mandatory affirmation and acceptance. That's going too far."
It's too soon to proclaim that a backlash is under way, said David Smith, senior strategist with the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
He cited a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey showing that 53 percent of people approve of allowing gays to enter into marriage-like contracts that are not considered legal marriages. The survey's results were released Friday.
A separate poll, by Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart Research Associates and Republican pollster American Viewpoint, found 50 percent of voters accept granting civil marriage licenses to gays, as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. Results were released Friday by the Human Rights Campaign.
All the long-term trends show steadily increasing public support for gay relationships and expanded protections against discrimination, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco. "One blip in one poll should not be taken as particularly meaningful," she cautioned.
Yet even gay activists concede that so many developments have converged so quickly that people have been caught by surprise.
No one fully anticipated that a June Supreme Court decision overturning criminal sanctions against gay sex would be as "powerful" and "far-reaching" as it was, Smith said, opening the door to the gay marriage debate.
Similarly, no one expected that Canada would move so quickly this year to legalize same-sex marriages across the entire country. "Most people thought it would be tied up in the courts for some time," he said.
Then, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, surprised everyone by adding sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy, and the new gay TV shows - "Boy Meets Boy" and "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" - began publicity campaigns featuring gay men preoccupied with fashion, style, romance, and yes, by implication, sex.
"A lot of people are finding this offensive," said Knight, of the Culture and Family Institute, referring to the TV programs. "They're backfiring badly."
That plays right into the hands of conservative groups such as Concerned Women of America and the Family Research Council, which mounted a well-organized effort to mobilize public opinion against gay marriage after the Supreme Court decision. Warning that the institution of marriage was in danger, the groups encouraged supporters to send letters, e-mails and phone calls to congressional offices in Washington calling for a same sex marriage ban.
President Bush tried to satisfy conservatives' demands Wednesday by saying he believes marriage is a union "between a man and a woman" and had instructed his lawyers to look into how to "codify" that principle. The president stopped short of endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual, but aides hinted he might be leaning in that direction. He also sounded a note of tolerance in reminding people to "respect each individual."
The proposed constitutional amendment is as galvanizing an issue for gays as marriage is for conservatives. "The idea of codifying discrimination in the Constitution - denying an entire class of people the right to marry - is staggering," Minter said. "It would put discrimination on the same footing as ending slavery or extending the vote to women or the Bill of Rights. That's a shameful concept."
Since the gay marriage debate erupted, the number of House sponsors for the amendment has quadrupled.
Gay and lesbian groups vow to get out the vote in coming elections, so candidates understand "there is a political price to be paid for these kinds of positions," said Randall Ellis, director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "We need to organize, like the far right, and focus on public education - letting people know we're their neighbors, in their schools, in their churches, right alongside them at work."
In the meantime, he predicted, public opinion over gay marriage is likely to resemble a pendulum "swinging back and forth, with each action provoking a reaction," defying attempts to fix attitudes at any given moment. Only time will make clear where this issue is headed. "We've got a long journey ahead," Ellis said.
---
© 2003, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicago.tribune.com
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
Now...if your cake was on fire...would you serve it to your quests? After seeing clearly the controversary this week TWC could very well be saying 'wait until this cools down'....and Frank Olsen could very well be the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time with a very good product and all hopes to get this product off the ground stand with an all American business (TWC) who is not going to step in the fire unless they are sure they can predict the outcome........
just my opinion
GOP urges unity against gay marriage
http://www.planetout.com/pno/splash.html
GOP urges unity against gay marriage
Ari Bendersky, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Friday, August 1, 2003 / 04:25 PM
In yet another move by conservatives to curb marriage equality, the Republican Policy Committee on Tuesday released a paper urging the Senate to move toward amending the Constitution to prevent gay and lesbian couples from ever legally marrying in the United States.
The 12-page paper, titled "The Threat to Marriage from the Courts," warned that if gay marriage is not dealt with swiftly, it could get out of control. The paper, authored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court finds in favor of the plaintiffs in Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health, which would essentially say a ban against gay marriage is unconstitutional, it would "spur more lawsuits to force that result on willing states -- like those cases already pending in New Jersey, Indiana and Arizona."
"These lawsuits will continue until Congress and the states adopt a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage," the paper continued. "Such a constitutional amendment would have to validate DOMA (the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act) and provide that the Constitution cannot be construed to change the traditional definition of marriage. It could, but need not, deal with the related issues of legal benefits that should be available to same-sex couples."
The National Stonewall Democrats, the country's largest GLBT Democratic organization, called the GOP's paper a guide for discrimination.
"Senate leaders should be adequately addressing inequality, and not publishing 'how-to guides' on how to discriminate against millions of Americans," said Dave Noble, NSD executive director. "It seems that all Republicans can do lately is find new ways to attack our families."
The pending Goodridge decision, which is expected any day, seems to have conservatives anxious.
The response has been a whirlwind of backlash to the once-growing support for gay marriage in this country. Until last month's Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas homosexual sodomy law, it appeared that public opinion favored equal rights for gay people.
Following the court's decision, a Gallup Poll revealed that 48 percent of Americans favored legalizing gay marriage, down from 60 percent before the judgment was announced.
However, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) on Friday released data from two new polls, the bipartisan Hart/American Viewpoint Poll and a joint Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
The bipartisan poll revealed that 63 percent of Americans support granting gays and lesbians the same rights and protections as straight Americans.
In addition, 53 percent of the country "favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that are not marriages, but that would give them many of the same legal and financial relationships as married couples," according to the WSJ/NBC data presented by the HRC.
On Wednesday, President Bush said his lawyers were looking at ways to "codify" marriage, which many interpreted as a move toward supporting an anti-gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, better known as the Federal Marriage Amendment. The measure has already been introduced in the House.
The proposed amendment simply reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Democratic and gay leaders are saying that the president is speaking out against gay marriage in order to cover up the bigger issues, like increased terrorism and the faltering economy, which have caused his ratings to drop in the polls.
"With President Bush's popularity dropping and the serious problems confronting Americans worsening, the administration seeks to divert attention by demagoguing on the issue of same-sex unions," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., an openly gay member of Congress. "This is a far cry from October of 2000 when, seeking votes from supporters of equal rights, Dick Cheney told a national television audience that the question of same-sex relationships should be left to the states, and that there should be no federal policy on the matter."
The Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's gay Republican group, sided with Rep. Frank and agreed with Cheney's remarks from 2000. The group, which tries to bridge a gap between conservative Republican thought and a more open-minded approach to gay issues, chided Bush's remarks.
"Log Cabin reminds the President that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined marriage as being between only a man and a woman," said Patrick Guerriero, LCR's executive director. "There are far more important priorities facing our nation than duplicating existing federal legislation. We encourage the White House to focus on winning the war on terror and jump-starting the American economy."
Welcome to the backlash on gay rights
OPINION / Keith Boykin's 411 ...
http://www.planetout.com/pno/splash.html
Welcome to the backlash on gay rights
OPINION / Keith Boykin's 411
by Keith Boykin
August 02, 2003
Keith Boykin is a former special assistant to President Clinton, Harvard Law School graduate, popular lecturer and Lambda Literary Award-winning author of two books. He writes daily commentary on his Web site, www.keithboykin.com.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy to win civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But in June, the Supreme Court struck down anti-gay sodomy laws and the Canadian government legalized gay marriage. Then last month, public support for gay rights declined, legislators began considering a ban on gay marriage and both the pope and the president came out against same-sex marriage. Welcome to the backlash.
A Gallup poll released in July showed a significant drop in public support for gay and lesbian rights. Just 48 percent of Americans said gay relations should be legal, and 46 percent said they should not. That's still a plurality -- but it's a dramatic drop from early May, when 60 percent said gay relations should be legal and 35 percent said they should not.
At a press conference recently, President Bush weighed in on the debate. When asked about gay marriage, he said his administration's lawyers were working to ensure that "marriage" remains between a man and a woman.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said, "and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country."
That was supposed to be the "compassionate" part. Then Bush said what he really felt. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that."
In other words, the president is saying that since his own religious beliefs say marriage is between a man and a woman, the entire United States government should adopt a policy to reflect that. That's a problem for a country built on the separation of church and state. And it's a problem for progressives who want to tear down the socially constructed walls of exclusion that divide us.
It didn't help matters when the Vatican announced a full-fledged campaign against gay marriage the following day. The Vatican issued a statement that it was "gravely immoral" for Catholic politicians to support same-sex unions and urged non-Catholics to adhere to the same belief.
In a 12-page document, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family." According to the document, "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."
The document also comes out strongly against gay adoptions, claiming that children raised by gay or lesbian parents were suffering "violence" and placed in "an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." The Vatican even argued that gay adoptions violate the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, in which governments are obliged to consider the best interest of the child.
That's a lot for gay activists to deal with in just one week. The timing of the Vatican's announcement helped to deflect criticism from President Bush by giving him religious cover for his own bigotry.
But there are four major problems with the conservative strategy. First, there already is a law against gay marriage. It's called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and it was signed by President Clinton in 1996. DOMA already prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay marriages, and it allows states the right to deny recognition of gay marriages from other states. It's a bad law, it's probably unconstitutional, but it is the law for now. There's no need for a new law.
Second, religion should not be the basis of federal government decisions. The president failed to articulate a single nonreligious justification for outlawing gay marriage. Our founders were smart enough to separate church and state so that neither one would be hampered by the other. If some religions want to ban gay marriage, they have the right to do so. But when the government decides to do the same thing, that's another story.
Third, the whole campaign against gay marriage is based on the flawed logic of protecting marriage. White House press secretary Scott McClellan spoke of the need "to protect the sanctity of marriage." But how does gay marriage threaten the sanctity of marriage? How does my relationship threaten your relationship unless you're insecure with your relationship? The skyrocketing divorce rates among heterosexuals are far more threatening to marriage than a loving relationship between two men or two women.
Fourth, we need to challenge the whole idea of marital privilege in the first place. What does it say about our society when two heterosexual strangers can hook up at a bar tonight, get married tomorrow and instantly enjoy more rights than two gay men who have spent 30 years of their lives together? While we're at it, why should the government be in the business of deciding that married couples get more rights, benefits and privileges than unmarried people?
The battle over same-sex marriage is much larger than same-sex marriage. With an unjust war in Iraq, the erosion of civil rights and civil liberties, the lack of universal health care, the anti-democratic process of presidential elections, the inequitable distribution of tax benefits, the disproportionate incarceration of black men, the war against women's bodies, record high black unemployment, high-profile hate crimes against black gays and lesbians and the diminution of the progressive Left, gay marriage hardly seems a priority.
Same-sex marriage is just one battle in a larger "culture war" going on in our country. Do we want to live in a belligerent anti-black, anti-gay, anti-woman, conservative, profit-driven, theocracy -- or a peaceful, progressive, multicultural, people-focused secular society that embraces everyone? The choice is ours
Bravo sets more records with gay shows
http://www.planetout.com/pno/splash.html
Bravo sets more records with gay shows
Randol White, Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network
Thursday, July 31, 2003 / 05:30 PM
The Bravo cable channel's new hit show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" pulled in a record number of television viewers on Tuesday night, beating the record set during its premiere earlier this month.
The show, featuring five gay men out to remake a "fashion-challenged" straight guy, became the highest rated in Bravo's history with 2.8 million people watching the 10 p.m. program.
"We couldn't be more pleased with the results, and Bravo is on its way to becoming destination television," said Bravo president Jeff Gaspin.
"Queer Eye" is doing so well that Bravo's parent company, NBC, wants a piece of the action. A half-hour version of the premiere episode was shown after "Will & Grace" on the network last Thursday. Now, after record setting ratings on Tuesday night, the New York Post said NBC is also considering re-airing this week's episode.
Bravo actually has two hits on its new gay-themed Tuesday night lineup. The premiere episode of the reality show "Boy Meets Boy" gathered 1.6 million viewers. While the total number watching "Boy" was slightly smaller than the premiere of "Queer Eye," it still considerably boosted Bravo's average viewer totals for the 9 p.m. time slot.
"Boy" is a show similar to ABC's "The Bachelor," only in this case it's a gay man who has 15 possible mates to choose from. The show makes life more difficult for the leading man because he doesn't know which of his suitors are gay or straight.
Despite the gay-themed appearance of Bravo's lineup, Gaspin said the target audience is actually women and that Bravo is absolutely not becoming a gay network. "Not that there's anything wrong with that," Gaspin said, quoting a famous "Sienfeld" episode.
NBC's cable news channel MSNBC reported on its Web site that there was internal debate at Bravo over how to market the shows. The network decided to drop gay viewers to the number two slot and spend the majority of its marketing dollars on women. The network said the reason for the decision is that gay viewers are not tracked by television ratings company Nielsen.
The shows are being carefully screened by GLBT groups like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).
"Bravo is being very inclusive, and we hope to see more from them," GLAAD entertainment media director Scott Seomin told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "What the ratings prove is that gays and lesbians are starved to see themselves in the media."
GLAAD however does have some concern over the "straight" twist on "Boy."
"The fact that this is TV's first gay romantic reality show is interesting enough," said Seomin. "The straight twist seems unnecessary and even cruel to the show's leading man."
Gay channel? We already have one
http://www.suntimes.com/output/rosenthal/cst-ftr-phil10.html
Gay channel? We already have one
July 10, 2003
BY PHIL ROSENTHAL TELEVISION CRITIC Advertisement
HOLLYWOOD--Just because Viacom is shelving its concept for an all-gay network doesn't mean cable television is hurting for shows dealing with interior design, fashion, makeovers, cooking, shopping and gardening, to say nothing of all those infomercials promising the secrets of rock-hard abs.
Clearly, cable networks have identified a fabulous target audience well worth wooing.
Gay is the new black.
NBC-owned Bravo this month, in a two-week span, will introduce both "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," a makeover series, and "Boy Meets Boy," an outre dating series in which a man tries to find the man of his dreams, which may or may not be telling us something about the network.
"Does this mean that Bravo is becoming a gay network? Absolutely not," Bravo president Jeff Gaspin told critics Tuesday, reading a spiel from a TelePrompTer. "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Perhaps he protests too much. Not that anyone is looking to out any networks here, but just as surely as musicals are making a comeback, there are those who will suggest Bravo is poking its head out of the closet for a gander and a ratings goose.
"People can write that if they want," Gaspin said when asked later. "I don't agree with it, and I would look at independent filmmaking. There's a subculture of gay filmmaking within independent films. That subculture does not define all of independent films."
So adding "Boy Meets Boy" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" to a Bravo schedule already stocked with the ever-flamboyant Cirque du Soleil, reruns of "Antiques Roadshow" and "Fame," repeats of Matt Lauer's infomercial with Madonna and, next week, both "The Gay Weddings Marathon" and a showing of NBC's "Cher: The Farewell Tour" is just misleading then, huh? Pardon moi.
"Bravo is left of center," Gaspin said. "I don't think Bravo is a direct hit to the mainstream. There are so many general-interest channels out there. If you want to stand out, if you want to be a little different, you actually have to do something a little different."
Gaspin said he believes that both "Queer Eye," which debuts Tuesday, and "Boy Meets Boy," which debuts July 29, "have the opportunity to break some stereotypes and to promote some very positive aspects."
"Boy Meets Boy" has some straight men in the dating pool competing for the affections of a gay man because there's a cash prize dangled before them--sort of the way certain channels are courting gay viewers, one might say.
As for "Queer," it's not clear which stereotypes will be broken in a show in which five gay experts spiff up a hetero's wardrobe, hair, home, cuisine and social skills.
"There are negative stereotypes and there are positive stereotypes," Gaspin said. "I'd like to think 'Queer Eye' focuses a bit more on the positive stereotypes. I don't know that we're looking to break down stereotypes as much as we're looking to show that gay people and straight people can actually work together quite nicely. We aren't doing the show to break down stereotypes. If it does that as an aside, that's terrific."
When it was pointed out that it looked as though every gay stereotype was represented among the five "Queer" specialists, Carson Kressley, who's the group's "fashion savant," corrected the critic.
"Well, not every one, 'cause we don't have a florist," Kressley said. "Ted [Allen, the Chicago writer who's the group's food and wine expert] has a great line for this, too: If someone says we look great or we have great hair or we're really good dancers, we're all for it. You know? Bring it on!"
Gaspin, standing off to the side, smiled. "I would be lying if I told you my goal is to break down barriers," he said. "My goal is to create compelling television that would get people talking about the channel."
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
CHANGING CHANNELS: Gaspin hasn't canceled Chicago writer Bill Zehme's "Second City Presents" interview series, though its prospects do not sound good. "I told them if they booked very strong comedians, I'd be happy to do some more," Gaspin said. "I need to put the ball in their court a little bit and say: 'You've got a shot if you can get me ratings, better ratings.' Otherwise I'd rather spend the money on new ideas."
Like running James Lipton's ultra-obsequious "Inside the Actors Studio" one, two, three and sometimes four times a day.
Of course it doesn't help "Second City's" chances that Jay Leno will be promoting his NBC program on NBC-owned Bravo through an appearance on "Actors Studio" rather than on Zehme's show. One trembles with anticipation over exactly how Lipton will gush over Leno's acting in "American Hot Wax" "Collision Course" and "Americathon."
Gaspin was unmoved by the accusation that the booking might cheapen the franchise because it's just a blatant attempt to shill for an NBC show. "You know," he said, "synergy is not always a dirty word."
Polls Favoring Equal Rights for Gays Shifting Right
http://www.gfn.com/news/spotlight.phtml?sid=14135&slid=1294
Polls Favoring Equal Rights for Gays Shifting Right
July 29, 2003
Colin F. Browne
A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll released today claims Americans have become significantly less accepting of homosexuality and, in particular, same-sex marriage. The news might have appeared grim for advocates of gay civil rights, except another poll, conducted by the respected Pew Research Center only weeks earlier, showed opposition to gay marriage declined.
The results of these polls may one day end up as vital ammunition when it comes to legislation that affects lesbian and gay Americans, when politicians use the information for or against advancing pro-gay laws. But a poll's most palpable effect may ultimately mean little more than a hastily tossed anti-gay epithet.
"In the final days and weeks before an election, notice how a candidate's approval rating jumps up and down from one day to the next," says Kevin J. Noonan, a Los Angeles-based sociologist, who follows gay trends.
But do our opinions on a given candidate really swing so wildly from day to day – or is it something else? asks Noonan. "The results may have to do more with what we had for dinner the night before than how we actually feel in the fleeting analysis."
If Noonan is saying we shouldn't take polls too seriously, many of us would disagree, understanding how they can, and have been, used against us by some politicans and the Religious Right. Even in the face of hard numbers, we still prefer to believe polls that favor our beliefs and hopes are correct, while the others are the result of something as innocuous as indigestion, if not outright bigotry.
The USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll describes a "backlash" on gay issues. "After several years of growing tolerance, the survey shows a return to a level of more traditional attitudes last seen in the mid-1990s," said USA TODAY.
Asked whether same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, 48 percent said yes; 46 percent said no. Before this month, said the paper, support hadn't been that low since 1996. To confound the issue further, the paper notes in early May, support for legal gay relations reached a high of 60 percent.
In the words of my 10-year-old gay-friendly nephew, what gives?
The shift in attitude, notes USA TODAY, occurs as gay issues have made headlines. In recent weeks, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law, a Canadian court decision allowed gay couples to marry in Ontario, and Wal-Mart expanded anti-discrimination protection to gay workers.
So the shift, concludes the paper, has to do with a conservative backlash, coupled with a growing intolerance for gay television shows like "Will & Grace." The explanation might make more sense if "Will & Grace" wasn't so hugely popular with everyday folk – it is the third most watched sitcom on television.
In contrast to the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, the Pew study, which actually shows lower numbers in favor of gay rights, also reports a sharp increase in people who favor the legalization of gay marriage.
Opposition to gay marriage has declined since 1996, from 65 percent to 53 percent, noted the study by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It also found the percentage of people who favor the legalization of gay marriage increased from 28 percent to 38 percent.
But, in the words of infomercial shills, wait, there's more. The results of polls may be a phenomenon of localization more than any publication reports.
One poll sampling taken only two weeks ago, shows a majority of voters in the state of New Jersey support same-sex unions.
The poll shows likely voters backed same-sex marriages 55 percent to 41 percent.
The poll was taken as a state Superior Court judge considers arguments in a lawsuit that seeking to make gay marriages legal in New Jersey. The suit was filed on behalf of seven gay and lesbian couples from the state.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International of Utica, N.Y., from July 15-19. Zogby pollster Duncan McCully said 67 percent of those who responded to the poll believed the state should drop its opposition to the lawsuit and focus on other matters.
The poll, commissioned by the New Jersey chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, also split quite neatly along political party lines: 64 percent of Republicans who responded opposed marriage for gay couples while 68 percent of Democrats favored it. Surprised? Probably not.
But is New Jersey really more liberal than the rest of the country? Or is it New England in general?
In April, just as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considers whether or not to permit gay couples to marry – an issue brought to them in a suit nearly identical to New Jersey's – the polls showed Massachusetts residents saying they favor allowing gays to marry.
The Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll showed 50 percent supported legalizing gay and lesbian marriages, while 44 percent said they oppose it.
The Massachusetts decision could come any day. Pre-dating the New Jersey suit, it's the first case asserting a right to gay marriage to reach a state high court.
Sociologist Noonan puts forth the pop culture notion our rights may be based less on who we are, but, instead, the perception of who we are in a given moment in time.
"The timing of the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup didn't just happen after the Supreme Court's decision - it also happened just as 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' was debuting," quips Noonan. "Maybe some people didn't like the show, or they didn't like gay people telling straight people they had no taste; perhaps they didn't like so many queens on national television at the same time."
Maybe we need another poll.
©2003 GFN.com. All Rights Reserved.
jm...
Paraphrasing my hero, Lee Iaccoca; QBID/TTN needs to, "..Lead, follow, or shut the **** up..."!!!
he is my favorite also...read his book years ago...
another one I admire is Jack Welch....of course he blew his
wife off for another woman (not quite as bad as guilliani who
was trying to bring his mistress into the same home as his wife and children and England knighted that fool! LOL!)
I was funding Federal spousal benefit support payments to a boy-widow of another boy (..who wanted to sit at home on the public doll and grieve..), because the first boy died of an avoidable (but incurable) disease brought on by his own irresponsible personal behavior
well we do some of that anyway for those who died from smoking, skin cancer etc supposedly equally destructive behavior...(and all of us have some form of it)....I mean
folks who don't control their stress level also have physical problems that could lead to death....
I think TTN intends to advertise to gay community via their advertising vehicles but I also think it's ok for them to take out full page ads in the *big read* media vehicles because their is a lot of sophistication among the g/l community and may very well get read their before a selected g/l media vehicle....I don't think the advertising vehicle is going to hurt them as much as this current controversy...I think they
could have survived the Vatican controversy...but gw I think right now put some real flies in the ointment....calling them sinners???????????????
BRING ON HILLARY......QUICK!!!!
jm....
What might sell in San Francisco, New Orleans or New York City "...ain't gonna cut it..." in Kearny, Nebraska. So, QBID/TTN better choose its moves carefully - if they a capable of moving forward at all.
Keith from TWC said this same thing....if you have a TWC unit who's population is primarily book worm types you wouldn't market sports to them...
so your point is well taken here...
This "..reaction/re-reaction.." arguement could very well set the 'gains' made by the non-traditional community back a decade+, if the obviously minority position is attempted to be shoved down the majority's throat.
I think this is why you are seeing such low key response from the glbt politicians...Barney Frank has come out in support of gay marriage whereas other politicians I think are moving slower in this subject IMO so they don't turn off the general population....and you are correct, we learned how much less was accomplished through the radical civil rights demands vs. the more tradtional and conservative requests from the MLK types who articulately stated their positions with a more grounded and general appeal....
Kerry criticizes Vatican pressure
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/02kerry.html
Kerry criticizes Vatican pressure
Democrat blasts anti-gay rights plan
Associated Press
BOSTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry scolded the Vatican on Friday for saying Catholic politicians like him have a "moral duty" to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.
"I believe in the church, and I care about it enormously," said the Massachusetts senator. "But I think that it's important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America."
The Vatican had urged Catholics and non-Catholics on Thursday to unite in campaigning against gay marriages and gay adoptions. The 12-page document issued by the church presents a battle plan for politicians confronted with legislation legalizing same-sex unions and rails against gay adoption.
The document calls on Catholic politicians to vote against laws granting legal recognition to homosexual unions and to work to repeal those already on the books.
"To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," it said, although it didn't specify penalties for Catholics who do.
Kerry opposes gay marriage, saying it is a right reserved in America for men and women, but he has said gay couples should have the same legal rights as husbands and wives.
When it returns from its August recess, the Senate will begin hearings to determine whether new laws are necessary to strengthen the federal definition of marriage as union between a man and a woman, Republicans have indicated.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.
President Bush said at a White House news conference Wednesday that he believed "a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other."
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the next daythe White House was studying possible responses if pending lawsuits in Massachusetts and New Jersey resulted in legalization of gay marriage.
Some Republicans in Congress also are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages.
Massachusetts Court Mulls Gay Marriages
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/6441721.htm
Posted on Sat, Aug. 02, 2003
Massachusetts Court Mulls Gay Marriages
JENNIFER PETER
Associated Press
BOSTON - The president and the pope may have their opinions about gay marriage, but it's the seven relatively obscure judges on Massachusetts' highest court who may write the next chapter in the debate about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to wed.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has had a history of extending broad parental rights to gay couples - leading to speculation that the court could become the first in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.
A decision could come soon in a lawsuit filed by seven gay partners who want the court to force the state to give them marriage license. The case has drawn national attention amid mounting predictions that the first American gay marriages could soon come to pass.
"I think it's a realistic prediction because of the nature of the court in Massachusetts," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, a national legal newspaper. "It's a court on which even the conservative judges aren't that conservative."
In a landmark 1993 case, the Massachusetts high court allowed a lesbian to adopt her partner's biological child, ruling that the right to adopt children could not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation.
Six years later, the court gave visitation rights to a lesbian's former partner, ruling that a lesbian who helped her partner raise her son was a "de facto" parent of the child and had a right to visit the child after the couple had broken up.
"This court has seen gay people as individuals and litigants," said attorney Mary Bonauto, of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued the gay-marriage case on behalf of the seven couples. "This court knows that we are out there."
If the court legalizes gay marriage, making the state a Mecca for couples seeking to solidify their commitment, the legislative and legal response is expected to be strong and immediate.
"I think all eyes are upon this court," said Connie Mackey, vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, which opposes gay marriage. "It's the next milestone in the battle."
Opponents of gay marriage have said they would ramp up their campaign for a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
President Bush said recently that he's considering steps to strengthen the federal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And the Vatican urged Catholics and non-Catholics to unite in campaigning against gay marriages and gay adoptions.
The papal and presidential pronouncements come after a summer that saw two Canadian courts rule in favor of gay marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court protect the privacy of gay couples in the bedroom.
In Massachusetts, changing the constitution would be a lengthy process, requiring two votes by successive Legislatures and the support of voters. The earliest it could appear on the ballot for a popular vote is November 2006.
If the court legalizes gay marriage, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts could take legal steps to challenge the "Defense of Marriage" laws - that block the recognition of gay marriage - on the books in 37 states.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act, approved in 1996, also would likely face legal challenge from gay partners seeking the federal benefits of married couples.
Under its internal guidelines, Massachusetts' high court was scheduled to issue a decision by July 14, but failed to meet that deadline. Lawyers on both sides are expecting an answer any day.
The court could rule several different ways.
It could take the unprecedented step of ordering the state to issue marriage certificates to the seven couples who filed the suit. It could follow the lead of the Vermont courts, which stated that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the rights and benefits of marriage, but left it to the Legislature to come up with a solution.
Or it could find that nothing in the law requires the state to recognize gay marriage.
Theories abound about what the delay in the court's decision means. According to Martinek: "The longer they wait, the more likely it is there's going to be a favorable outcome for the plaintiffs."
State Rep. Philip Travis, a Democrat, who opposes same-sex marriage, disagrees: "The longer they wait, the more likely they're going to look to the state Legislature and the people to decide."
---
On the Net
Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders: http://www.glad.org
Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org
Anglicans on the brink over gay bishop...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/02/1059480604686.html
Anglicans on the brink over gay bishop
August 3 2003
By Barney Zwartz
In a few hours the worldwide Anglican Church will know whether it has a future in its present form. That is when the church in the United States is expected to ratify the election of the first openly active homosexual bishop.
If the US national convention in Minneapolis confirms Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire tonight or tomorrow (US time), schism with more than half the world's Anglicans seems certain.
The leaders of more than half the world's 75 million Anglicans have pleaded with the American Church - known as Episcopalians - not to proceed, and most have threatened to sever ties. The church is in uncharted waters.
In the worst scenario, the Anglican Church in Australia could fracture along doctrinal lines.
There is already tension between evangelicals, especially in the powerful Sydney diocese, and liberals over a whole range of issues.
Many liberals believe that if Sydney could guarantee keeping its wealth and property it would already have split.
A group of orthodox primates (leaders of national churches) and bishops, including Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, met in America the week before the convention.
They warned that confirming a non-celibate homosexual as bishop or the proposed blessings for same-sex unions would "shatter the church" and lead to "a dramatic realignment". They plan to meet again after the convention.
According to Bishop Robert Forsyth, of Sydney, the Western church does not understand how outraged the African and South American churches are.
In Africa, along the border with Islam, it is a life and death issue.
"Muslims have said, 'if this happens we will not even regard you any more as a heavenly religion'. Persecution and deaths will rise. A lot of this is to do with the utter shame they will feel in their context, in trying to explain how Christians can do this."
Bishop Forsyth, who has just returned from a conference of (conservative) evangelicals in Kenya, said approving a homosexual bishop would deeply exacerbate the distrust and lack of confidence showing in the Anglican communion.
"We're in new territory," he said. "This will make irrevocable changes of some kind. The real power in this is not Sydney, not Canterbury, but very much the Christian south."
Last week the Vatican said it was
"gravely immoral" for Catholic politicians to support gay marriage.
In a related development, President George Bush said he would ask experts to seek new ways to "codify" marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
Unlike the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church, each Anglican province is independent, under the titular headship of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is the third crisis in two months for the worldwide Anglican communion.
In late May, a Canadian bishop approved same-sex blessings, whereupon a majority of the two-thirds world church cut ties with his diocese.
Last month, Canon Jeffrey John withdrew as the proposed Bishop of Reading in England under great pressure from evangelicals and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, leaving the church in England deeply scarred.
Dr Williams last week made a veiled plea for the American church to hold back for the sake of the worldwide church.
He wrote to all the national leaders, warning against choices by provinces that deepened the divide.
But it cannot be put off indefinitely. For orthodox Anglicans, what is at issue is the authority of scripture and the unity of the church.
For liberals, who dominate the church in the West, it is a question of justice. Both are acting in good conscience.
In Sydney, where Archbishop Jensen has emerged as a world leader of the conservatives, the main concern is for evangelical parishes in dioceses with liberal bishops.
Some countries allow "flying bishops" to offer oversight to churches that cannot accept their own - as in Canada, where the Bishop of Yukon is pastoring dissident parishes in New Westminster - but this is deeply controversial within the church.
As one bishop told The Sunday Age: "It's OK to think there are five gods, but don't come into my area."
In New Hampshire, Bishop-elect Robinson, who lives with his gay partner, has vowed that he will not stand down as Jeffrey John did. On the contrary, he has his own public relations office near the convention, and his supporters wear buttons saying: "Just ask me about Gene."
He needs a simple majority vote in each of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. Only once, more than a century ago, has the Episcopal Church refused to ratify a bishop.
According to the influential conservative Anglican online commentator David Virtue: "It is going to be a knock-down, hammer and nails, tooth and claws fight, with blood all over the convention floor. It will not be a pretty sight."
Virtue, who bitterly opposes Robinson, writes: "With its theology and morals growing thinner by the day, if not in tatters, the Episcopal Church is climbing towards its own Calvary, and now seems bent on crucifying itself without any outside help."
- with New York Times
jarvis c....well I'm wondering if the problem with the launch ties directly with the Vatican and gw controversy....and TWC doesn't want to put it's reputation on the line right now....until all this settles down. And I agree with ron2...this is developing into a major battleground between the Vatican/gw (although separate) supported by and cheered by the very anti gay US population along with the not so necessarily anti gay but very conservative US population against the gay community and the politicians who recognize that they were voted in by *all* walks of life not just their self righteous, ego building, higher than God attitude...remember when gw said *I love you* and *God loves you*...?????? what a pompous axx....who the hexx is he to put himself on the same level as God....that's what scares me about his latest stand....he will put his holier than thou attitude right in the middle of American freedom. Now for all the folks who listen to his *all for the family* crap...how many of his family were there for his niece who has a major sickness right now...her father? no, her mother? no, her brother? one time, Barbara? no, George, no? her aunt, one time.....who the hexx is this self righteous family preaching to.....???????
This reminds me of a field...each time someone tries to come out there is someone there to hammer them back down....and the support and determination is about equal on both sides...
The gays have to come out very strong right now and stand together....they will linger on in history if they do not put their differences aside and stand together to resist this controversy surrounding them....
And I'm willing to bet TWC right now is apprehensive about putting their feet in the middle of it......
just my opinion
jm...well my personal favorite was when jimmorrisson called him pinnochio today at RB....LOL!
I'm wondering if the PR could be tied up in all this controversy from the Vatican and gw....who wants to announce a gay station when the pres comes out as Pope George and calls these folks sinners? Hillary couldn't come fast enough for me...it's one thing to say you don't agree with something....it's another to think you are so autonomous and self delegating pompous fill of yourself that you are going to put laws in to change what you think people should be.........
OMG
well I guess when people voted in this fool they got a national minister in the process? This guy thinks he's the nations pope LOL!
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16408
Bush won't compromise on same-sex 'marriage,' spokesman says
Aug 1, 2003
By Michael Foust
WASHINGTON (BP)--President Bush is taking a principled stand against same-sex "marriage," a White House spokesman said July 31, noting also that the president will not compromise on the issue and is considering a constitutional amendment that would ban homosexuals from "marrying."
Bush told reporters July 30 that he believes in the "sanctity" of traditional marriage and that government lawyers are studying "the best way" to protect the definition by law. During the White House press briefing July 31, reporters pressed White House spokesman Scott McClellan to defend Bush's position.
"[T]his is a principled stand," McClellan said. "This is a view he feels very strongly about. And the president will not compromise on that view. ... Make no mistake about it, the president is strongly committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage and defending a sacred institution that he believes is between a man and woman."
McClellan also was asked about the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would add language to the constitution banning same-sex "marriage." It has more than 75 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.
"Obviously that is something to look at in this context," McClellan said. "But we need to see where these court cases come out."
Massachusetts' high court is expected to rule any day on a case in which homosexual couples are seeking the right to marry. Similar cases are pending in the lower courts of other states, including New Jersey.
"[W]e are monitoring those court cases to see what may be needed in that context," McClellan said. "But until we see rulings on those court cases, it's hard to say what the nature of that may be."
The Federal Marriage Amendment has yet to be introduced in the Senate, although some senators seem ready to support it.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in The Washington Times Aug. 1 he thinks the solution "needs to be the constitutional amendment [because] I don't think you can solve it statutorily." Additionally, an aide to a Senate Republican leader predicted that the White House and congressional Republicans eventually would agree to push an amendment.
"Frankly, all the other options come up short," the aide told The Times.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D.-S.D., told reporters July 31 that an existing law, the Defense of Marriage Act, is "abundantly clear" in defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.
"No change is necessary," he said.
The problem, social conservatives say, is that the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent an individual state, such as Massachusetts, from implementing same-sex "marriage." Conservatives also worry that DOMA could be overturned in the courts on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit. That clause, found under Article IV, stipulates, "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."
In fact, Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, acknowledged in Newsweek magazine's online edition July 8 that homosexual activists have plotted their legal strategy.
"We need a state court victory [allowing same-sex 'marriage'] before we see any action on the federal level," Cathcart said. "We will have to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act but we are not in a position to do that until [homosexuals] are [actually] married...."
If the White House briefing July 31 was any indication, the media aren't cozy to Bush's position.
One reporter asked McClellan: "[W]hy is it the role of the president to use the legal code to enforce what amounts to a religious interpretation, his religious interpretation of the sanctity of marriage and to say that that excludes the possibility of gay marriage?"
Another reporter asked him how Bush views himself as a compassionate conservative "when he's against same-sex marriage [and] he doesn't think that he should allow [marriage] for gays?"
McClellan said Bush respects those who disagree with him.
"I think the fact that we may disagree on certain issues doesn't mean we can't work together on areas where we agree," McClellan said.
McClellan also was asked to expand on Bush's views on homosexuality.
"[T]he president believes we're all sinners," McClellan said. "The president believes we are all the same in God's eyes. And the president does not believe it's his place to judge others. The president is not one to cast stones. The president believes we ought to treat everybody with dignity and respect."
so I'm not getting the difference...these folks whine all day and chemist ask them to stop whining and chemist gets thrown off and these folks are still whining....
where in this equation is an intelligent board?
ACNS3531 Legislative Committee approves ratification of Canon
From "Anglican Communion News Service" <acnslist@anglicancommunion.org>
Date Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:07:28 +0100
ACNS 3531 / USA / 1 AUGUST 2003
Legislative Committee approves ratification of Canon Gene Robinson
by Matthew Davies
A special hearing before the committee on the consecration of Canon Gene
Robinson as Bishop-Coadjutor of New Hampshire took place this morning at
the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, USA, in
Minneapolis. After two hours of testimony from bishops, deputies and
visitors, the legislative committee on Prayer Book and Liturgy endorsed
the ratification of the Canon Robinson's consecration.
Canon Robinson is the first openly gay man to be elected bishop in the
Anglican Communion. Some bishops, however, have admitted their
homosexuality later in their episcopacy. Reactions to his ordination
have been both strong and varied, although the landslide victory has
suggested that many clergy and laity in his diocese have every faith in
his ministry.
During the hearing Canon Robinson said, "There are three or four people
in each parish who find this difficult. As I attend services on Sundays
there are people who are happy to come forward and say that they are not
happy about the election. Many others, however, are coming to church
expressing their full support."
Canon Robinson was asked the question, "What is the purpose for which
our creator made us sexual beings?" He replied, "God has given us the
gift of sexuality so that we might express with our body the love we
have in our hearts. The desire we feel for one another is just a glimpse
of the desire that God has for us."
The Rt Revd Thomas Shaw, Bishop of Massachusetts, spoke in favour of
Canon Robinson's consecration as he feels that it will make the
Episcopal Church [and the Anglican Communion] stronger and more ready to
respond to the vision of 20/20: a movement which works towards embracing
fully the stated mission of the church.
The Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Revd John Howe, said that Gene
Robinson is an enormously likeable person and wished that was all there
was to it. He reminded the gathering, however, that it would "constitute
a massive change in the church".
Sister Shirley Anderson from Maine spoke about Canon Robinson as being a
very prayerful priest and great administrator. "The two don't often go
together," she said. Sister Shirley added that a diocese should be
allowed to choose their own bishop.
The Bishop of Quincy, the Rt Revd Keith Ackerman, gave quite a balanced
argument and began with the words, "I love you; this is painful." He
identified the fact that all of us are concerned about the unity of the
church. "We are a small part of the Anglican Communion and we cannot
stray away from the teaching without consequences," he said. "Each one
of us needs to vote as we think we are led by the Holy Spirit."
Speaking about the privilege of engaging with many bishops concerning
issues that confront their countries and dioceses, the Bishop of
Washington, the Rt Revd John Chane, said, "Gene's election will reaffirm
the faith-driven ministry of this church and the Anglican Communion."
The Rt Revd Andrew Hedtler Fairfield of North Dakota spoke to the motion
that the issue is not concerning homosexuality but honesty. "Committed
homosexual couples are new and something that the bible has said are
irrelevant," he said. "The Bible promotes the relationship of husband
and wife and Romans 1 specifically talks about this committed
relationship."
Now that the Committee has endorsed the ratification, the measure will
go for vote in the House of Deputies.
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 6,000 journalists and other readers around
the world. For subscription information please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html
there was one of these trades yesterday I think...what is it?
12:37:36 1243700 0.0002 + OTCEQ_NBB
odd # of shares
specks, logs & marriage....
http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/08-09-03/opening_3.asp
August 9, 2003
Volume 18
Number 30
Top-Story
The Top 5 Stories
By The Editors
1 the bush doctrine(s)
Full-fledged news conferences are rare in the Bush White House, so they almost always generate news. One day after a news conference last week, only the ninth of his presidency, Mr. Bush generated not only news, but perhaps action. He reiterated his demand that Liberian strongman Charles Taylor step down before he would commit any U.S. troops to a peacekeeping mission there, and less than 24 hours later West African leaders produced a blueprint for Mr. Taylor's departure.
Mr. Bush also touched on the hunt for Saddam Hussein (How close? "Closer than we were yesterday. "); on whether National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is in trouble over the State of the Union flap ("America is lucky to have her service. Period. "); and on the impasse with North Korea's Kim Jong-il over his regime's nuclear program (he reported progress that he said would lead to "attitudinal change" on Mr. Kim's part).
The Bush administration stepped up pressure on Mr. Kim last week. Washington's top arms-control official, John Bolton, blasted the North Korean dictator in a speech in South Korea's capital. Mr. Kim subjects his people to a "hellish nightmare" while he lives "like royalty in Pyongyang, " Mr. Bolton said. A Wall Street Journal analysis of the Bolton appearance suggested that the administration wants to "make a distinction between the man ... and the rest of North Korea's government and citizenry, and to tacitly raise the possibility of regime change as a way of ending the current nuclear standoff."
2 specks, logs & marriage
President Bush launched a theological debate last week-and a gay advocacy group demanded an exception to the president's exegesis of the Apostle Paul's declaration that "all have sinned. "
Asked by a reporter about gay marriage, the president prefaced his remarks with his understanding "that we're all sinners. And I caution those who may try to take a speck out of their neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own. " Mr. Bush then said that doesn't mean "somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage. " He said he's put his lawyers to work on what Washington could do to protect marriage by codifying that it is meant as the union of "a man and a woman" only.
Gay activist Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was appalled. The president has a right to his religious views, he said, but "it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners.' "
The president's remarks give new impetus to the effort to approve a marriage amendment to the constitution. The effort has gained momentum since the Supreme Court overturned the Texas anti-sodomy law on a legal theory that some constitutional experts fear would lead to judicially imposed gay marriages.
A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released last week shows that since the high court decision, pro-gay sentiment actually slipped. In less than three months, according to the poll, the number of Americans who think homosexual relations should be legal dropped-from 60 percent in May to 48 percent last week.
3 'a line of black'
Sometimes it's best to fight fire with fire. That's the theory firefighters employed near West Glacier, Mont., last week as they set backfires along 2- and 3-mile stretches of land in order to deny fuel to three forest fires that together had engulfed more than 50,000 acres in Glacier National Park.
The hope is that the main fire will draw the backfires to it, and that when they meet, none of them will have more fuel to burn. "It's doing exactly what we wanted it to, " fire information officer Jack Butler said, in the Missoulian, of a 2,500-acre backfire near the town of West Glacier. "It's creating a line of black between the homes and the fire. "
As more than 2,000 firefighters took on the Glacier blazes, another 1,000 fought a 71,570-acre fire in the Pasayten Wilderness in north-central Washington state.
4 a hope-less industry
Bob Hope's death made the front page of The New York Times, which gave the universally beloved entertainer "above the fold" treatment. Below the fold, at the bottom of the same page, the Times ran another entertainment-related article, "Gay-themed TV gains wider audience, " featuring a color photo of two men from the Queer as Folk television show kissing.
Thus the contrast between Bob Hope's brand of entertainment and what has taken its place.
Mr. Hope was patriotic, pro-family, respectful of religion, and he never used bad language in his routines. This did not prevent him from being very, very funny. He could lampoon politicians to their face, but his sense of humor was so good-natured that the targets of his satire laughed along with him.
Today's stand-up comics, in contrast, make a strenuous effort to be lewd and crude. Their personas tend to be angry, cynical, and hostile to every value they can find. George Carlin, one of the first anti-Hopes, became famous in 1972 for a schtick in which he did nothing more than utter "the seven words you can't say on TV. " Now that you can, in fact, hear all of those words and more on cable TV, comedians keep trying to find lines they can cross and taboos they can break. But few are as funny as was Bob Hope.
In classical literature, comedy was the most moral of dramatic forms because it entailed ridiculing vice. The old comedies often portrayed vice, but they presented it as foolish, laughing it to scorn. The assumption was that people would not want to imitate behavior that was being made fun of. Bob Hope was in this tradition, using humor constructively. Many of today's comedians, instead of ridiculing vice, ridicule virtue.
But even when his style of humor had become passé, Americans of all ages and political persuasions could not help but appreciate Bob Hope. It is doubtful whether Queer as Folk and the stars of The Man Show will inspire as much affection.
5 not so dismal anymore
The so-called "dismal science" of economics sounded positively cheery last week. Three government reports indicated that increased investment and employment may be starting to bear fruit in a growing economy:
3È The Federal Reserve reported that business activity is up in 8 of its 12 districts. Only the Fed banks in Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco reported sluggish economic activity; the Atlanta Fed said business conditions were mixed.
3È The Labor Department said new applications for unemployment benefits fell the previous week by 3,000 to 388,000, a five-month low. Jobless claims have now dropped for three straight weeks.
3È The Commerce Department reported that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, up from 1.4 percent in the previous two quarters. Business investment grew at an annual rate of 6.9 percent during the same period.
Said economist Joel Naroff: "With investment coming back, the signs seem to be there for a significant rebound in growth. "
Tel Aviv Extends New Privileges to Homosexuals
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200308/FOR20030801d.shtml
Tel Aviv Extends New Privileges to Homosexuals
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - In a move that is largely symbolic but has been heralded as a breakthrough by Israel's homosexual community, the country's largest municipality has decided to grant same-sex couples certain privileges enjoyed by couples who are legally married.
As of Friday, Tel Aviv-Jaffa - Israel's financial center - began offering homosexual couples discounts on admission at public events and discounts on certain memberships, including those at city swimming pools.
Adir Steiner, an advisor to Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai, said the change in policy has no "legal weight," butit indicates a "public atmosphere change."
"The actual effect is not that significant," Steiner said in a telephone interview. "It's not a breakthrough in the Israeli spirit of things, but it's a breakthrough when it comes to official [policy]."
Steiner emphasized that the ruling is not a law but rather a procedural shift in the way city workers will define who is a couple. Same-sex and some opposite-sex couples who live together would now meet that definition.
But the overwhelming majority of those who will benefit from the new policy are homosexual couples.
Steiner said he did not know if other cities in Israel would follow suit. He credited Huldai with advancing the homosexual agenda since he became the mayor of Tel Aviv in 1998.
"He said he would change the attitude toward gays and lesbians in Tel Aviv...and step by step he did that," Steiner said of Huldai.
Five years ago, Tel Aviv became the first Israeli city to officially sponsor a "gay" parade. Three years later, Eilat followed suit.
Jerusalem hosted its first "gay" parade and "gay pride" event last year, prompting an outcry from the religious community as well as from residents of the city.
At the time, ultra-Orthodox Shas party legislator Nissim Ze'ev charged that the event injured the holiness of Jerusalem and the "morals and sacred values" of Israelis.
He compared the practice of homosexuality to "a pig or an idol in the Temple," anathema according to Jewish law as written in the Bible.
Judaism/gay tv article...
http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enD...
Out and about
New shows, new laws, and new trends are pushing gay lifestyles into the mainstream. Did Judaism start this queer love fest?
by Benyamin Cohen July 31, 2003
THE BOYS OF SUMMER: The Fab Five from Bravo's wild popular Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
There's no question about it. This seems to be the summer of sex -- and we're not talking about the normal hetero "wam-bam-thank-you-ma'am" type. It's more of the "thank-you-man" variety.
From the Supreme Court to the television airwaves, it seems we can't raise our rainbow flag high enough. First the Supreme Court ruled, in a case stemming from testosterone-filled Cowboy central (aka Texas), that that there ain't a thing wrong with sodomy. Then this week came news that New York was opening the first all-gay, all-the-time high school. The Vatican got its piece of the action this week as well, calling on Catholic politicians to help bar gay civil unions.
"... With Homo High and Gay TV just being the latest in a seemingly unstoppable trend, there's no question about it that homophobia has jumped the shark ..."
The Pope, however, was behind the curve. Pat Robertson had already made waves by launching "Operation Supreme Court Freedom," praying divine intervention might create regime change in the high court, making it safe for Bible-thumping homophobes once again.
We seem to be getting that same sort of gender-bending deluge from the world of entertainment as well. You can't change the channel without coming across some man-on-man plotline. The Bravo network has a phenom on its hands with the wildly successful Queer Eye for the Straight Guy about a group of gay men who make over a straight fella. And this week they launched a reality show with a not-so-straight twist called Boy Meets Boy.
With Homo High and Gay TV just being the latest in a seemingly unstoppable trend, there's no question about it. Homophobia has jumped the shark, and according to some in the know, the Jewish community is at the forefront of said movement.
"I think we've helped create the mainstream," explains Rabbi Joshua Lesser, who is himself a homosexual. "I think the Jewish community in its entirety, from Orthodoxy to its most progressive part, by and large, have been willing to grapple with this issue for quite a while."
Lesser also feels that as a minority within a minority, gay Jews garner the sympathy of their fellow tribe members. "I definitely feel like there's a value of recognizing the stranger in one's midst," he says. "We've all been strangers on some level -- we recognize that from a compassionate place."
Indeed, a new poll released this week by Zogby International related the aspect of Jewish compassion towards gays and lesbians. According to the survey of eligible New Jersey voters, Jews favor same-sex unions by a whopping 69 to 28 percent.
Rabbi Lisa Edwards, a lesbian pulpit rabbi in Los Angeles, agrees that the mainstream is being redefined by both cultural and legal shifts, but is quick to point out that it has been a long and arduous battle. "These shifts have come about through a long process of gay, lesbian, bi and trans people refusing to be hidden or second class," she says. "In their families, schools, jobs, political activity and community work, GLBT people have suffered soul-crushing hatred, abuse, and discrimination."
Edwards believes that with the current shift towards being more receptive, the response to the phrase "Shmuel has two daddies" could go from "Oh no" to "Oh really?"
"Over the past 30 years and more, these people have created community, institutions, families, art, and a cultural presence, refusing to be defined by values we know to be misguided," she says. "'Coming out,' a term added to the English language from the gay and lesbian experience, is a term now universally applied to anyone being honest about who they are, often with a hint of bravery or risk."
The other shoe drops
That's all fine and good, but lest anyone believe a gay love-fest is about to ensue in synagogues across the country, there are plenty of Jews less than excited about the pro-gay shift in America.
"There can be little question that acceptance of homosexuality is on the increase these days," admits Rabbi Avi Shafran, the Director of Public Policy for Agudath Israel. "The roots of that devolution of morality lie, I think, in a general societal drift toward seeing human beings as mere creatures, and sexuality as a mere form of pleasure. That attitude, of course, is diametric to Judaism's, which sees human beings as essentially spiritual beings, and shoulders us with holy responsibilities in many realms, including the sexual."
Lesser, however, feels the tectonic shift in our gaydar has less to do with sexuality and more to do with those oh so warm thing called feelings. "What has shifted," Lesser explains, "is that we used to think that homosexuality was about a wrong sexual act. That's how we approached it. Now, what we recognize is that gay and lesbian people want very much the same thing everybody else wants -- family, relationships. So it is not just about a single behavior."
Despite the slight nuance, Shafran isn't jumping for joy. "From a Jewish perspective -- at least one that is grounded in respect for the Jewish religious tradition -- the current drift toward acceptance of homosexuality can only be grounds for sadness and concern."
And so, it appears, the debate over the gay Jewish community rages on. Can someone pass the remote?
Omega....
thanks
MRXT continues slow and steady...
.294/.31
jcradio...a friend of mine told me once this stock makes you think you have mental problems! I'm beginning to think that persons right.....we sit here day after day....Frank could apply for and get as far as I'm concerned any symphony conductor job in the world...he keeps us interested, keeps up moving in his direction.........and yup we get to that ever cyclical crazy stage....and then back on track again!!!!! LOL!
jc...if nothing's signed then there's nothing to report except they have a carriage agreement then. TWC did say that a couple were interested in signing on...I hope that's the PR content and not that they have a carriage agreement.
jarvis c....rusisright has posted frequently that Frank said a PR was coming out. I think folks put too much weight in those messages IMO. If I saw over and over and over and over again that a PR was coming out I'd start to not give the statement too much credibility...then we have the cry wolf situation! LOL! Not to minimize rus because he's just reporting what he's told. I just don't put much credence in it after I see so many posts and so many not materializing.
JMO
jarvis c...why do you say tomorrow? thanks