By John Culhane, Professor of Law, Widener University
03.10.2011 9:29am EST

An elderly man is standing near a grave. A funeral memorial service for his life-long partner has just concluded. Surrounded by mourners, he is allowing himself a moment of quiet reflection and grief.

Just then, two young men burst from behind a wall of mourners and shout: “Fag deaths are God’s punishment! U.S. is going to Hell.” One man then pushes the bereaved, frail man into the open grave, and the other grabs the nearby shovel and starts piling dirt on him.

After about thirty seconds, the two miscreants are dragged away by a group of mourners.

A few months later, the victim sues his two attackers for his physical and emotional injuries. Does he have a claim, or does the First Amendment protect the actions of the men who attacked him?

This question would have seemed too ridiculous to ask until last week, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case involving the Westboro Baptist Church, Snyder v. Phelps. There, you’ll recall, an 8-1 majority of the Court held that the First Amendment armors against liability even those who commit the most violent actions against helpless victims.

Only Justice Alito dissented.

Wait! (you’re thinking). Your example involved a violent physical act; the Westboro creeps used words only.

But that response overlooks the development of the law, over the past century, to recognize that emotional distress can be inflicted not only by physical acts, but also by conduct that is sometimes based mostly – or even only – on words.

And the law now allows the victims to recover damages for such conduct.

This tort action, called the intentional infliction of emotional distress, has been used to compensate for horrendous conduct. Here are a couple of “greatest hits”: In the English case generally credited with creating the tort, a man (falsely) told a woman that her husband had been in a serious auto accident and was “smashed up pretty good.” She suffered a miscarriage as a result of the stress.

In another case, a therapist systemically humiliated one of his patients to facilitate his plan to steal the patient’s wife (with whom he was already having sex). He suffered a staggering array of disabilities brought on by the distress, including hypertension, loss of vision in one eye, anxiety and depression.

Since life is full of stresses – some of it intentionally inflicted, sometimes even by our family and friends – the tort is carefully circumscribed. Indulge me for just a minute while I spell out the strict requirements for recovery.

The plaintiff must first establish that the conduct was “extreme and outrageous”, and not only to the satisfaction of the jury, but also to the judge (unusual because typically it’s for the jury to decide such factual issues). The claimant must also show that the defendant intended to cause severe emotional distress, AND that such severe distress resulted (as in the above cases).

Read more.

By Steven Petrow
02.25.2011 11:00am EST

Q: How do gay people decide these days what words to use to refer to their significant others?

I’m not really comfortable calling mine my “lover” (although he insists on calling me that), but the word “partner” is confusing: Business partner or life partner?

It seems to me that the language keeps changing in this area; even some couples who have gotten hitched don’t like “husband” or “wife”!  Do you have any advice on where to begin?

A: I definitely agree that it’s confusing. And, there sure are a lot of options in play these days in the LGBT community—and some very strong feelings out there about what people don’t want to be called. Regardless of the particular legal status of a relationship, you’ll likely hear everything from boyfriend/girlfriend, beau, life partner, spouse, lover or husband/wife to “my sweetie pie.”

The truth is that it’s pretty much up to the two of you to decide what terms to use. I’m reminded that years ago when Miss Manners was asked this question regarding straight couples, she punted, humorously suggesting: POSSLQ, which stands for Persons of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters (pronounced possel-que). Perhaps, she might suggest PSSSLQ, for Persons of the Same Sex Sharing Living Quarters – or not!

Fortunately, manners don’t dictate anything about the propriety of one phrase or another. If there’s any rule here, it’s that you respect each other’s wishes. For instance, it doesn’t sound like you’re okay about your guy calling you his “lover.” So I really do suggest speaking up about that.

Whatever the two of you decide—and yes, you may very well want to be called quite different things—think of this as a chance to find a decent description of your relationship, partly for each other and partly to make things easier on everyone else.

Read more.

Steven Petrow is the author of the forthcoming Steven Petrow’s Complete Gay & Lesbian Manners. Send him your question to: ask@gaymanners.com

In October 2008, racing against California’s gay marriage ban, Chloe and Frankie Frankeny wed legally in San Francisco with one chore already done: Chloe had taken her wife’s name two years before.
“It was the only way we had to fit into a mainstream role that was understandable to anybody,” said Chloe, managing editor of a fashion website. “When I told my father I was taking Frankie’s name he was sort of blown away because I definitely consider myself a feminist.”

With a battle over the state’s ban on gay marriage possibly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it’s likely more same-sex couples will do the same. For the Frankenys, the name switch couldn’t magically grant all the marriage benefits denied same-sex couples when compared to one man, one wife, but it was one more way to express their union. It’s a symbol rendered even stronger now that legal gay marriages are on hold in California, and for partners who’ve never had the option.

Logistically, a name-change for gay couples isn’t always as simple as trotting out a marriage certificate, the proof most required in heterosexual marriage. Emotionally, the journey is about love, commitment – and a way to ease anxiety over being misunderstood as non-relatives in emergencies or considered less-than as parents.

Kirsten Palladino, who runs the online gay wedding ‘zine Equally Wed, shed Ott for the surname of her partner, Maria, last year without benefit of a state-sanctioned union in Georgia. She’s seeing more couples go to court for name changes, settling on hyphenation or one partner’s surname over the other. [Editor's note: Read Palladino's wedding advice every Wednesday on 365gay.com]

“We have grown stronger and are speaking out for ourselves in this way,” said Palladino, 32. “There’s nothing stopping us from taking each other’s names, even if we can’t get a marriage certificate.”

After a five-year courtship, the Palladinos had a wedding at an antebellum mansion in Decatur, Ga. Kirsten became a Palladino after running a newspaper announcement of her intentions once a week for four weeks and appearing before a judge, just as people going through a formal name change for reasons other than marriage must do.

“I was nervous. I didn’t know how the judge would feel, but he was great. Personally, I had to deal with some identity issues after, but becoming a family unit with my wife trumped anything else for me,” she said.

College sweethearts Kathryn and Heather Kraft of Newton, Mass., just celebrated 12 years together and have a new baby. They had a church wedding five years ago in white gowns with 10 bridesmaids after obtaining a marriage license under their state’s gay marriage law.

Whose name did they choose? Kathryn said her Kraft over Heather’s Cole “because we’re very close to my family and wanted to add to that family in a noticeable way.” They had considered combining names into a new one that “represented both of our ancestry, but in the end we’re very traditional people.” Cole is now a middle name for the entire family, including baby Esther.

Making the switch with a legal marriage certificate was no trouble for Heather, until she tried to get a U.S. passport ahead of a trip to Europe. “We were shocked when Heather’s application was denied,” said her 32-year-old partner, a family therapist. “The passport office would not recognize our marriage certificate as proof and insisted that she had to go in front of a judge to have a court-ordered name change.”

After six months, she was issued a “known as” passport identifying her by both names. “It’s a small thing that isn’t noticeable when you look at her passport, but the process was long and an unnecessary reminder that things aren’t exactly equal,” Kathryn said.

Jason and Anthony Cline committed to each other in 2001 during a hotel ceremony in their native Indiana, where gay marriage is outlawed. They thought about heading to a state where their union would be legal but decided not to bother knowing they’d return home to suburban Indianapolis without that recognition.

Jason, 33, legally changed his name, going through a newspaper notification process and enduring questions from a judge as Palladino did.

“The process seemed cold but it helped prove our relationship to our friends and family that maybe weren’t as advanced in their thinking on the topic. It helped solidify our relationship to the people that we knew and to the world,” he said. “It starts a conversation. It tells a story.”

Chloe Frankeny sees other practical outcomes to changing her name, including proof of family status in case of a medical crisis.

“With the same last name we could say we were sisters,” she said. “We’ve all heard stories of partners kept apart in emergency rooms. That was a precaution we wanted to take.”

From nearly 80 percent to 95 percent of heterosexual couples marrying for the first time legally adjust their names as the age of the average bride has risen to about 27 over the last 20 years, according to research. Professional identity before marriage motivates others – in same-sex and hetero couples alike – to keep their original names informally or incorporate them as middle names.

Elisa Hebert, 32, wasn’t attached to her surname before she traveled with partner Megan from their home outside Denver, Colo., to Rehoboth, Mass., a plus since most of their friends and family are from New England. Back home, Elisa appeared in court to complete her legal name change before a judge managing a roomful of ticked-off parents and their kids hauled in for truancy. “I felt like a 12-year-old who was in trouble,” she said.

Marni Kahn, a doctoral candidate in sociology in Atlanta, took partner Casey Brown’s last name after a marriage ceremony that blended their Jewish and Southern Baptist roots. “It really did tie things up nicely,” said Casey, a marketing analyst.

Actor and writer Marcos Mateo Ochoa, 29, of Los Angeles chose to hyphenate instead. He goes by Cermak-Ochoa after marrying partner Frank Cermak on Oct. 4, 2008, a union legally recognized in California with 18,000 other same-sex marriages there before voters approved Proposition 8 and ended the practice. He plans to make the name switch legal once the court case is resolved.

“We want to identify ourselves as being united, but with California being so flip-floppy on this, it’s just a matter of when we go about the process,” Ochoa said. “Is this going to be another obstacle, another hurdle for us to go through?”

Read more.

By Celeste Lavin.

A group of Orthodox rabbis issued a statement calling for the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the Orthodox community.

The statement said, “Embarrassing, harassing or demeaning someone with a homosexual orientation or same-sex attraction is a violation of Torah prohibitions that embody the deepest values of Judaism.” “Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and about 150 rabbis, mostly from the Modern Orthodox movement signed the statement that listed 12 principles for why gays and lesbians should be accepted in the Orthodox community.

Still, homosexual acts and gay marriage were found to be against the Orthodox interpretation of Judaism.

Even without marriage though, the rabbis wrote that “communities should display sensitivity, acceptance and full embrace of the adopted or biological children of homosexually active Jews in the synagogue and school setting, and we encourage parents and family of homosexually partnered Jews to make every effort to maintain harmonious family relations and connections.”

The statement of principles emphasized that “change therapies” encouraged by some communities could be very harmful. “We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous,” read the statement.

It also said that Jews with same-sex attractions should not be pressured to marry different-sex partners “as this can lead to great tragedy, unrequited love, shame, dishonesty and ruined lives. They should be directed to contribute to Jewish and general society in other meaningful ways.”

Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot wrote the original draft of the statement after six months of preparation with other Orthodox rabbis and educators.

American Judaism’s Reform and Reconstructionist movements accept gay Jews completely. The Conservative movement’s view is slightly more ambiguous, leaving the decision to ordain gay rabbis and conduct same-sex union ceremonies up to individual synagogues. The Orthodox movement has generally been opposed to homosexuality.

Read more.

By The Associated Press

(Buenos Aires) Argentina legalized same-sex marriage Thursday, becoming the first country in Latin America to grant gays and lesbians all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexual couples.

After a marathon debate, 33 lawmakers voted in favor, 27 were against it and 3 abstained in Argentina’s Senate in a vote that ended after 4 a.m. Since the lower house already approved it, and President Cristina Fernandez is a strong supporter, it now becomes law as soon as it is published in the official bulletin.

The law is sure to bring a wave of marriages by gays and lesbians who have increasingly found Buenos Aires to be more accepting than many other places in the region.

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio said “everyone loses” with gay marriage, and “children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.”

Nine gay couples had already married in Argentina after persuading judges that the constitutional mandate of equality supports their marriage rights, but some of these marriages were later declared invalid.

As the debate stretched on for nearly 16 hours, supporters and opponents of held rival vigils through the frigid night outside the Congress building in Buenos Aires.

“Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for centuries, and is essential for the perpetuation of the species,” insisted Sen. Juan Perez Alsina, who is usually a loyal supporter of the president but gave a passionate speech against gay marriage.

But Sen. Norma Morandini, another member of the president’s party, compared the discrimination closeted gays face to the oppression imposed by Argentina’s dictators decades ago.

“What defines us is our humanity, and what runs against humanity is intolerance,” she said.

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Mexico City has legalized gay marriage. Colombia’s Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.

But Argentina now becomes the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, granting gays and lesbians all the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexuals have. These include many more rights than civil unions, including adopting children and inheriting wealth.

Gay rights advocates said Argentina’s historic step adds momentum to similar efforts around the world.

“Today’s historic vote shows how far Catholic Argentina has come, from dictatorship to true democratic values, and how far the freedom to marry movement has come, as twelve countries on four continents now embrace marriage equality,” said Evan Wolfson, who runs the U.S. Freedom to Marry lobby.

He urged U.S. lawmakers to stand up “for the Constitution and all families here in the United States. America should lead, not lag, when it comes to treating everyone equally under the law.”

Among the opponents were teacher Eduardo Morales, who said he believes the legislation was concocted by Buenos Aires residents who are out step with the views of the country.

“They want to convert this city into the gay capital of the world,” said Morales of San Luis province.

Ines Franck, director of the group Familias Argentinas, said the legislation cuts against centuries of tradition.

Opposing the measure “is not discrimination, because the essence of a family is between two people of opposite sexes,” he said. “Any variation goes against the law, and against nature.”

The president, currently on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Argentine Catholic Church’s campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

“It’s very worrisome to hear words like ‘God’s war’ or ‘the devil’s project,’ things that recall the times of the Inquisition,” she said.

Some opposition leaders have accused her of promoting the initiative to gain votes in next year’s presidential elections, when Fernandez’s husband, former President Nestor Kirchner, is expected to run again.

The vote came after Sen. Daniel Filmus urged fellow lawmakers to show the world how much Argentina has matured.

“Society has grown up. We aren’t the same as we were before,” he said.

Read more.

By Celeste Lavin, 365gay.com
07.12.2010 4:30am EDT

The White House has announced that it will release a National HIV/AIDS Strategy tomorrow.

According to a press release from the White House, the strategy will focus on reducing the number of new HIV infections, increasing access to care and health for those already living with HIV and reducing health disparities related to HIV.

AIDS activists have been pushing for a national AIDS strategy for years. The Bush administration was the first to implement a global AIDS plan, with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), but no administration has yet to tackle the domestic HIV/AIDS crisis with one cohesive strategy.

Christine Campbell, a spokesperson for Housing Works, the largest community-based AIDS service organization in the nation, said that the strategy is a good start.

“Were excited that it’s coming out, but our work is just beginning. The challenge will be in the implementation.”

Read more.

Holiday Watercooler: Be a gay rights patriot

By Ray Hunt, blogger, 365gay.com

It’s that time of year for barbecue’s fairs, picnics, concerts, baseball games and fireworks…yep it’s time for Fourth of July celebrations. I was wondering what to write for the long weekend festivities. Should I post more True Blood goodness? More Catholic church hypocrisy? More pop culture tidbits that tickle my fancy?

Nope. I was inspired by the Take Back Pride movement to encourage all of us to get politicized (or more politicized) and take back the 4th of July. If you are active, inspire others. If you give cash, give time. If you are just an informed citizen, get involved. Patriotism must  be defined by the patriot! And we can all define ourselves as human rights patriots (you too, straight allies).

Pick a topic that impacts the LGBT community and get to work. Below is a short list of examples to get you started and by all means post your own favorites. Happy 4th!

• Marriage Equality. Why should we want to imitate the hetero-normative institution of marriage? Whether you personally want to get married someday, or not, fight we must.

There are 1,138 Federal benefits, rights and protections afforded to married couples that GLBT couples will never see because of the dreaded Defense of Marriage Act (thanks, President Clinton). Even if you are lucky enough to live in one six states (hello Iowa!) that allows same-sex marriage you will never be invited to the federal party until we win.

• DADT. One of the most inane policies enacted (thanks again, Clinton!) by the federal government is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The House of Representatives recently voted to repeal the discriminatory policy and this summer the Senate will take up the issue. We may be witnessing the last breaths of a policy that is as silly (what? gays don’t serve?) as it is hurtful to our military readiness (especially in times of war).

More than 13,500 service members have been fired under this law since 1994. The law is a response to “homosexual panic” and seems to have been enacted to keep potentially gay soldiers from showering with heterosexual soldiers. Come on, butch up…you already do!

• ENDA. In these difficult economic times, it’s important to be as secure in our livelihoods as possible.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would provide LGBT employees with protection against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The bill protects workers form discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation practices, as well as retaliation for reporting such practices.

Read more.

A  Health and Human Services committee voted on Friday to maintain the ban against blood donations from men who have sex with men. Under the regulation, any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 cannot donate blood. The ban was instated in 1985, during the height of the AIDS pandemic.

The vote was 9-6.

Representative Mike Quigley (D- Chicago), who led the effort to re-evaluate the blood ban, said of the decision, “By clinging to a 1980s view of the world, we are perpetuating a stereotype.”

A man who has sex with an HIV positive woman, or a woman who has sex with an HIV positive man is required to wait one year after this sexual encounter to donate blood. The regulation for men who have sex with men is a lifelong ban. It is estimated that if this ban were changed to a one year deferral, 89,000 additional pints of blood would be donated each year. The Red Cross currently collects over 15 million pints of blood annually.

“This decision is outrageous, irresponsible and archaic,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “We expect more out of this advisory committee and this administration than to uphold an unnecessarily discriminatory policy from another era.

“We’ve said it before: The most critical issue is to ensure that the blood supply is safe and abundant, and this means maximizing the potential donor pool and making sure all donors are screened appropriately and assessed based on actual behavioral risk independent of their sexual orientation. The committee’s decision today not only leaves a discriminatory practice in place, it also puts lives at risk.”

While the committee voted against changing the regulations, the group did call the present system “suboptimal” because it permits “some potentially high risk donations while preventing some potentially low risk donations.”

The committee unanimously recommended taking steps toward an eventual policy change that would examine donors’ individual behaviors, rather than characteristics of a general group, but for now, the prohibition remains.

Read more.

By The Associated Press
06.01.2010 3:43pm EDT

(Moscow) Two Gay Pride parades were held without arrests in Moscow on Saturday, the first time the notoriously intolerant Russian authorities have not intervened since the inaugural attempt to hold the event in the capital in 2006.
he activists’ spokesman claimed that the absence of harrasment, beatings and detentions was due to their “military planning” rather than any kind of warming toward non-traditional orientation among officials.

Moscow riot police typically disperse such gatherings with brute force, emboldened by declarations from city Mayor Yury Luzhkov equating homosexuals with the devil.

The activists also blame Russia’s resurgent Orthodox Church, which publicly and sternly denounces gay culture, for fomenting homophobia.

About 25 activists held a short demonstration on The Arbat, a pedestrian street lined with shops and cafes that is one of Moscow’s main tourist draws.

They marched for about 10 minutes, holding banners and shouting slogans such as “No discrimination on the grounds of orientation.” Some observers waved and laughed, and there were no signs of hostility.

Police did not try to disperse the march, but when the demonstrators saw a line of uniformed officers blocking the street ahead of them, they scattered.

A few hours later in northwestern Moscow a smaller, international group including British activist Peter Tatchell unveiled a long rainbow flag and chanted “Russia without homophobes!” and “Equal rights, no compromise!”

“Today it’s like the Soviet era in Russia: Those who seek to hold a peaceful protest are being hunted by the police and the FSB security, like we were some kind of criminals or terrorists.” Tatchell, a member of the U.K. rights group OutRage, told Associated Press Television News.

The last gay parade was in May and coincided with the final of the Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow. That ended with dozens of arrests. Foreign politicians and pop stars as well as dozens of Russians have been roughed up by police and attacked for participating in the protests.

Asked whether he felt a thaw in official attitudes toward gays, parade organizer Nikolai Alexeyev told The AP after the protests Saturday that there had been no change, and no detentions had been made because the activists had simply given the cops the slip.

“Our military planning was why there were no arrests. We had to organize these parades under strict secrecy, we turned away anyone we didn’t know,” he said, claiming the authorities were attempting to infiltrate the organizers.

By Shamecca Harris, 365gay.com
05.29.2010 10:00am EDT

The Federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability is set to hold a hearing June 10 and 11 to reconsider a FDA rule which bans gay from donating blood, CNN reported.

The rule, implemented in 1983, prevents men who have had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood. Established during the onset of the HIV/AIDS crisis, it was intended to be a preventive measure from spreading the virus and other transfusion-transmitted diseases.

Activists, including the Human Rights Campaign, the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers and AABB are opposed to the lifetime ban of gay donors. “Potential donors should be screened more fairly regardless of sexual orientation” they said in a joint statement.

Politians have also weighed in on the debate. Senator John Kerry and 17 other senators signed a letter challenging the “outdated policy.”

“Gay men, including those who are in monogoamous relationships, are forbidden from contributing blood for the rest of their lives, while ‘a heterosexual who has had sex with a prostitute need only wait a year [before giving blood]. That does not strike me as a sound scientific conclusion,’” Kerry wrote.

Even so, the Food and Drug Administration stands by their policy. The policy “is based on scientific data that s how that certain medical, behavioral and geographical factors are associated with increases risk of transfusion transmitted diseases,” they told CNN. Still, the agency says it is “considering the possibility of pursing alternative strategies that maintain blood safety.”