HRC's reply (my apologies for the delay in posting)

Hi folks. I should've posted this earlier. It's the reply I eventually got from HRC after I wrote to them last month.



Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:21:48 -0400
From: <***********@hrc.org>
Subject: RE: Membership letter from Joe Solmonese
To:


Dear Timothy,

Thank you so much for contacting HRC regarding your concerns about our most recent direct mail package.

Please let me assure you that the sentence in question was unfortunately a complete oversight on our part—and will be rectified immediately. We are truly grateful you have brought this to our attention so quickly. The sentence should have read and in future print will read: We are all connected by a common thread---the simple belief that every American deserves to be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We are also taking the extra step of looking over all materials to make sure that we are being truly reflective and inclusive of all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. So thank you for this reminder as well.

Joe has had the opportunity to meet with several transgender leaders across the country since he's started, including Mara Keisling and Caedan Dempsey in Washington, D.C., Pauline Park in New York, Rachel Crandall in Michigan and others. He's valued the discussions he's had with these leaders and will continue to meet with transgender community members throughout his tour across America.

And we are also grateful that Jay was willing to be highlighted in our staff section. He is one of the most dynamic and valued members of the HRC team. So thank you for acknowledging this.

This unfortunate omission you uncovered is in no way reflective of the organizations sincere commitment to working for transgender rights in this country. HRC’s official position is one of full support for transgender-inclusive workplace and hate crimes legislation. Period.

As you may know, on 8/7/04, the Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors adopted a policy to support a modernized version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The adopted resolution reads: “The Human Rights Campaign adopts a policy that we will only support ENDA if it is inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.” The updated language includes gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation to ensure that every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender American is protected from employment discrimination.

HRC has long supported inclusive legislation but took this action in anticipation of ENDA’s reintroduction in the 109th Congress. HRC staff will continue to work tirelessly to ensure passage of a comprehensive ENDA. Additionally, HRC meets with leadership of other advocacy groups on a regular and ongoing basis to discuss federal legislation and other issues and has never pressured our allies to not support inclusive language in our legislation.

Our efforts are indeed ongoing and wide-ranging. In several cities across the country, we have held town hall meetings on transgender issues, and partnered with GLBT groups to pass inclusive state laws and local ordinances. Last year, we gave Equality Fund grants to GLBT groups in five states to help them pass transgender-inclusive legislation. We also work with corporations to get company non-discrimination policies to include gender identity alongside other protected classes. We look forward to the day when all GLBT Americans have equal protection under the law and will continue to be a leader in making that dream a reality.

I would also like to provide you with an informational document that also highlights the work and progress HRC will continue to pursue in the transgender community. Please see the Microsoft Word attachment labeled “HRC & Transgender Work.”

Again, please accept our sincere apologies. And thank you for not just walking away, but giving me the opportunity to respond to this issue. Trust that it will be handled appropriately, and it is things like this that will make the organization ultimately better and stronger.

Please don’t hesitate to get back in touch with me if you require any clarification on any of these points, as HRC is more than willing to keep an open dialogue on these issues and welcomes feedback and inquires from the LGBT community. If I can be of any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

And thank you for your membership. Your support is truly valued and appreciated—and I would hate for that to change.


Respectfully,

Laura Dalrymple


_____________________________________________
Laura A. Dalrymple
Member Services Manager
Human Rights Campaign
1640 Rhode Island Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036-3278
email laura.dalrymple@hrc.org
direct phone 202.216.1525
fax 202.216.1505
web www.hrc.org

working for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equal rights. =

It's Pride weekend!

Tonight, a friend of mine from chorus said the following:

"I think I'm going to have sex with a stranger in order to sleep in air conditioning tonight."

I am not making this up.

Oregon's gorilla speaks

This is really major.

On behalf of Nike, Inc., I write in support of passage of Senate Bill 1000 and Senate Bill 1073.

SB 1000 will prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation and services and education on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill will also create civil unions and extend a set of rights and responsibilities to same-sex permanent partners. Senate Bill 1073, another bill under consideration by the legislature, contains similar provisions relating to the creation of civil unions.

Nike has a record of leadership in support of diversity and non-discrimination, as recognized by the Human Rights Campaign. Nike is committed to diversity and inclusion and strives to treat our employees equally without regard to sexual orientation or marital status.

The non-discrimination provisions contained within SB 1000 are consistent with Nike's corporate policies and practices and our support of similar legislation at the federal and state level. We strongly support the non-discrimination provisions in SB 1000, as this legislation will extend a set of basic rights to many Oregonians.

Nike also supports the provisions in SB 1073 and SB 1000 creating civil unions and extending a set of rights and responsibilities to same-sex permanent partners, which are consistent with their financial and non-financial commitments. Supporting the creation of civil unions is a meaningful complement to the non-discrimination position Nike has taken previously. And, civil unions promote inclusion by providing all our employees the opportunity to enter into lasting permanent relationships without regard to sexual orientation. As a global company, we have employees in other countries who can opt to register civil unions or an equivalent status.

One of the Nike Maxims is to "Do the Right Thing," which asks our employees not to look for things that make us different, but to look for things that make us better. Many of our employees' lives will be better because of the passage of these bills.

Sincerely,
Wes Coleman
Nike, Vice President of Global Human Resources

Secrets of defensive driving

I'm so glad I've just completed the National Safety Council's online Defensive Driving Course. I am sure it will make me a better, more careful, more courteous driver. In addition, it will erase my recent speeding ticket from my record and keep my friends at the insurance company from worrying their little heads about it.

The Defensive Driving Course is a rigorous, five-part affair. One of its very special features is that you cannot advance to the next screen until the nice man has finished reading out loud the text on the current screen. It makes for a memorable afternoon.

Here are screen shots that show some of the learning experiences that I'll especially cherish.


Seat Belts



Control



What It's All About

Bill and Hill

"I'd like to thank the Gay Men's Chorus. I was back there,
feverishly trying to write down all those lines. If someone
would furnish me with the lyrics to that song, I'd call
Hillary and give her those best lines tonight. I would be
eternally grateful"

- Bill Clinton at the Gay Men's Chorus of LA

next CGMC show: pride weekend

No police liaison to the gay community

“It is the policy of the Chief of Police not to conduct liaison with any group which deliberately engages in criminal actions. In that the laws of the State of California proscribe the kind of activity which would characterize a person as a homosexual, your type of organization falls into the category wherein we do not conduct liaison activities.”

---Chief of Staff, office of the Chief of Police of Los Angeles, in a letter to the Gay Community Alliance, November 16, 1971

Brand-Free (but slightly Politics-Laden)

Photographed tonight, near Silverlake, here in LA.

Just got finished with a conference near LA where some of the hottest members of my department made brief appearances. Now I'm staying on, doin' some research, and stayin' with one of my favorite exes.

Last night someone in the club asked if I could get her cocaine. I'm going with the theory that this is simply because of my highly visible West Hollywood authenticity, rather than any sign that I look like I do a lot of coke.

a-changin.

"Ever since I saw your last name '***-***' on the roster, I've been wondering if maybe you got married in Massachusetts or something."

-- a chorus member

The New Yorker on gay men, crystal meth, and HIV

To the editor:

Michael Specter's vivid account of the current resurgence of risky sex among American gay men frankly addresses the effects of drugs and the Internet on gay men's sexual decision-making ("Higher Risk," May 23). But it leaves out a crucial actor: the Bush administration.

It is remarkable that Specter describes a meeting of Gay Men's Health Crisis volunteers, yet fails to mention the administration's cuts to funding for gay-oriented HIV prevention organizations, under new Department of Health and Human Services guidelines that make it much more difficult for them to obtain federal grants.

The effects are not abstract. In some cities, gay men have noticed that there just aren't as many free condoms available at gay establishments and events as there were just a couple of years ago. The return to risky sex practices is troubling, but so is the return to the politics of the Reagan years. Then, as now, many gay men will suffer.

Two steps forward, one step back in fighting the right

It's hard to know exactly what to think of the Great Senate Compromise and the Return of the Moderates. However, in this situation it is important to remember some things about the context. By we, I mean all Americans who were troubled by the Republican leadership's political attacks on the judiciary and direct attacks on the procedural rights of the minority party in the one place, out of the entire federal government, where it really has any power at all.

The compromise isn't perfect. But one really good thing about it is that seven relatively powerful Republicans said a very loud, formal, public "fuck you" to the religious right. They also specifically stated that it is their opinion that the "advice and consent" clause regarding judicial nominations means that the President should consult with members of the Senate, from both parties, before nominating an individual, and that they thought President Bush should do that in the future.

Let's also remember:

1) what the other side had to say about it. It's true that NARAL sent me emails about how this was a flawed, partial victory that could hurt us in some ways, but let's start off with what Gary Bauer had to say about the compromise:

"This is a sad day for our nation. The desire of millions of Americans to restore balance to our federal courts has been thwarted behind closed doors by 14 senators. Only three of President Bush's appointees are guaranteed an up or down vote under this sell out.

"Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all."

2) what Jeremy Posadas had to say about it (forwarding an article in an email, by which I first heard about the compromise):

This is FAR, FAR from perfect, but it preserves the most desperately important things: the right to filibuster itself, and a critical mass of Senators who can block extremist SCOTUS appointees.

3) what Geoffrey Stone had to say about it, which is really smart, I think

4) what the National Association of Manufacturers had to say this week, which suggests that OUR side should be using social issues as a wedge issues:

Some gripe GOP isn't taking care of business

By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- John Engler, the former Republican governor of Michigan who now heads the National Association of Manufacturers, vowed before the November elections to use his trade association's might to back President Bush's judicial nominees. But as the Senate showdown plays out, the business group is delivering a different message: Judges are not its fight.

NAM's decision to sit out the brawl may be indicative of a broader trend. From Wall Street to Main Street, the small-government, pro-business mainstay of the Republican Party appears to be growing disaffected with a party it sees as focused on social issues at its expense.

5) That's it. Enough congratulating ourselves. Now get back to fighting the right some more. Cause there's more coming, lots more.....

Should women---already banned from direct combat----be banned from combat support roles, too?

This article, and the controversy it describes, is fascinating. It reminds of Ned Rorem's complaint that, as far as he was considered, being banned from military service was one of the few real "perks" that comes along with being gay.

It's pretty remarkable that Republicans are making this proposal - and worrying about whatever problem it's supposed to solve - in the face of the hideous personnel crisis that the Iraq war has created for the U.S. military. The vehemence of the military's reaction is pretty striking, too.

***

May 20, 2005
Chauvinism at the Battlefront

Female soldiers are barred by national policy from direct ground combat in Iraq, but that has not saved the lives of 34 American women killed so far in that lethal battlefield bereft of front lines. In a remedy steeped more in misplaced gallantry than wisdom, House Republicans ran into Pentagon opposition this week with a sudden proposal to protect women by cutting back the jobs they could hold in support units stationed to the rear of ground combat soldiers. The net effect, Army leaders properly warned, would hurt women's careers by shutting them out of more than 20,000 vital support jobs in a military effort that is already hard-pressed to keep its ranks filled with fresh volunteers.

Fighter aircraft and surface warship postings were opened to women a decade ago in a heated but progressive national debate after the Persian Gulf war. The overall policy entrusted to the Pentagon provided larger job opportunities for women in the services. Right now, with a war raging, female soldiers vital to the effort need no demoralizing intrusion into the gender issue by impulsive lawmakers.

As it turns out, the job cutback proposal created such a furor from military professionals and opposition Democrats that Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee had to retreat at the last minute, but not entirely. They approved a face-saving substitute that is less sweeping but would still give Congress excessive power to control future advancements for women in the military.

The amendment would hobble service commanders and deserves to be stricken next week in the House floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

The gruesome truth remains that war is hell, even as its front lines become viciously vague. The daily car bombings, suicide atrocities and insurgent raids show that no area of Iraq, from Humvee patrols to chow halls, is a safe haven for the occupation troops, male or female. Women have volunteered for the full range of opportunity and risk implicit in their military careers. They are proving their valor in Iraq and need no demeaning protections from Congress.

HRC. They are such ****-ups!

Date: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:20 PM
From: Timothy ***
Subject: Membership letter from Joe Solmonese dated May 11, 2005
To: Steven Fisher

Dear Mr. Fisher,

I wrote to you last October to tell you that I had decided to
join HRC because of the Board's change of position regarding
version of ENDA that did not include gender identity.
Although I am a non-transgender young gay man, I had been
upset for years that HRC did not include my transgender
friends and loved ones as full members in a united struggle.

I just received a letter from Joe Solmonese asking me to renew
my membership. In it, Mr. Solmonese states that in traveling
the country, he has realized that "we are all connected by a
common thread---the simple belief that every American deserves
to be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation." I
am deeply offended by the omission of gender identity-based
equality in this most visible statement of purpose, directed
to the organization's membership, by its new President.

The letter also lists four gay or lesbian individuals and one
heterosexual couple that he met in Middle America, but no
transgender people, to whom "your support matters." While it
is true that the letter mentions transgender people (along
with straight people) in a postscript acknowledging
"collective efforts," and the enclosed profile of eight HRC
staff members includes a staffer in your department who is
identified as transgender (and thanks HRC for "stepping up in
a big way on transgender issues"), I am disturbed that HRC's
leadership apparently do not feel that---given the
organization's checkered past on trans issues---they must go
out of their way to make sure trans people are visibly and
fully included.

If the wording of the letter is simply about pandering to
members who may be transphobic, then clearly HRC has not fully
adopted its new, more inclusive mission. If, on the other
hand, there was an oversight, then I presume that Mr.
Solmonese will issue a formal, public apology for the
non-inclusive wording of his statement regarding the "common
thread" by which "we are all connected." How else can he
possibly avoid giving the impression that HRC's change in
policy was simply window-dressing?

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.


In struggle,
An angry 25-year-old member,
Timothy ***
Chicago, Illinois

* * * * *

Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:06:03 -0400
From: Steven Fisher
Subject: RE: Membership letter from Joe Solmonese dated May 11, 2005
To: Timothy ***

Hi Timothy -- Thank you so much for alerting me to this. We're looking
into this now. Please be assured that Joe and HRC are fully committed
to equality based on gender identity and the entire gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender community. Someone from our membership team or
I will get back to you with more information. Once again, thank you
forwarding this to me. Steven

Call moderate Republicans TODAY

Susan Collins (R-ME)
(202) 224-2523

Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
(202) 224-4224

John Warner (R-VA)
(202) 224-2023

"I am calling to urge Senator _____to vote "NO"
on the so-called "nuclear option" that would
prevent the filibuster of nominees to federal
courts."

great lakes naval training station

SRisk1979: i have looked at their station journal from the ww2 era
SRisk1979: which chronicles sailors phoning from chicago to say they were overstaying leave, coming back trashed out of their minds, phoning from chicago to say they missed the last train
*tim’s friend*: hehehe
*tim’s friend*: sailors are hot.
SRisk1979: i'm serious.
SRisk1979: i know i just watched "on the town" with jessica tonight
SRisk1979: (1949) with gene kelly
SRisk1979: about sailors on leave in NYC
SRisk1979: and then we watched the theatrical trailer which was a DVD special feature
SRisk1979: trailers were fucking long in 1949
SRisk1979: like five minutes or something
SRisk1979: and at the end of it it said:
SRisk1979: in bold letters across the screen
SRisk1979: THREE SINGING SAILORS!
SRisk1979: THREE DANCING DAMES!
SRisk1979: TWICE AS GAY AS "ANCHORS AWEIGH"!
SRisk1979: and we just about died laughing

ahhhhhh, biopolitics.

This is so interesting. My friend Corey knows Leland Traiman (quoted in the article) really well. Corey tells me the scientific evidence supporting this regulation is far weaker than that used to keep the ban on gay blood donors. (In college Talia and I organized a petition drive against the FDA's ban on gay men donating blood, but in fact, after learning a fair amount about the AIDS crisis and the scientific arguments, I softened my stance somewhat.)

I must say I love the FDA's statement that "The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors." And would prevent some lesbian couples who want a gay male sperm donor from doing so.

BTW, an attentive reader (care to introduce yourself, Ryan?) brought up in a comment the recent incident at NYU in which a law student asked Antonin Scalia, during a question-and-answer period, whether or not he sodomizes his wife. The student's message to his classmates about the incident was published on the Nation's website, and it's very articulate (and, I think, right).
-tim


May 5, 2005
F.D.A. to Implement Gay Sperm Donor Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:26 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.

The FDA has rejected calls to scrap the provision, insisting that gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus. Critics accuse the FDA of stigmatizing all gay men rather than adopting a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight.

''Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years,'' said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, Calif., that seeks gay sperm donors.

Traiman said adequate safety assurances can be provided by testing a sperm donor at the time of the initial donation, then freezing the sperm for a six-month quarantine and testing the donor again to be sure there is no new sign of HIV or other infectious diseases.

Although there is disagreement over whether the FDA guideline regarding gay men will have the force of law, most doctors and clinics are expected to observe it.

The practical effect of the provision -- part of a broader set of cell and tissue donation regulations that take effect May 25 -- is hard to gauge. It is likely to affect some lesbian couples who want a child and prefer to use a gay man's sperm for artificial insemination.

But it is the provision's symbolic aspect that particularly troubles gay-rights groups. Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, has called it ''policy based on bigotry.''

''The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science,'' Cathcart said. ''There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool.''

In a letter to the FDA, Lambda Legal has suggested a screening procedure based on sexual behavior, not sexual orientation. Prospective donors -- gay or straight -- would be rejected if they had engaged in unprotected sex in the previous 12 months with an HIV-positive person, an illegal drug user, or ''an individual of unknown HIV status outside of a monogamous relationship.''

But an FDA spokeswoman cited FDA documents suggesting that officials felt the broader exclusion was prudent even if it affected gay men who practice safe sex.

''The FDA is very much aware that strict exclusion policies eliminate some safe donors,'' said one document.

Many doctors and fertility clinics already have been rejecting gay sperm donors, citing the pending FDA rules or existing regulations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

''With an anonymous sperm donor, you can't be too careful,'' said a society spokeswoman, Eleanor Nicoll. ''Our concern is for the health of the recipient, not to let more and more people be sperm donors.''

However, some sperm banks, notably in California, have welcomed gay donors. The director of one of them, Alice Ruby of the Oakland-based Sperm Bank of California, said her staff had developed procedures for identifying gay men with an acceptably low risk of HIV.

Gay men are a major donor source at Traiman's Rainbow Flag sperm bank, and he said that practice would continue despite the new rules.

''We're going to continue to follow judicious, careful testing procedures for our clients that even experts within the FDA say is safe,'' said Traiman, referring to the six-month quarantine.

The FDA rules do not prohibit gay men from serving as ''directed'' sperm donors. If a woman wishing to become pregnant knows a gay man and asks that he provide sperm for artificial insemination, a clinic could provide that service even if the man had engaged in sex with other men within five years.

However, Traiman said some lesbian couples do not have a gay friend they know and trust well enough to be the biological father of their child, and would thus prefer an anonymous donor.

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

''This rule will make things legally more difficult for them,'' she said. ''I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination.''

^------

On the Net:

FDA site: http://www.fda.gov

Exceptions

At dinner at a friend's house on Saturday night, I had a conversation with a guy who said, and I quote, "I'm straight, but, you know, every now and then I'll make an exception." It made my night. I told him I wanted to to have a party soon, just so that he could come and other people ther ecould hear him describe himself that way.

Development of Gay and Lesbian Subcultures

I was flipping through the table of contents of a college US History textbook today, and was startled to find a subsection called "Development of Gay and Lesbian Subcultures," within a larger section on "Patterns of Ethnicity, Race, Class, and Gender," itself within a chapter on "Prosperity Decade, 1920-1928."

I've seen US History textbooks that include a mention of the Stonewall Riots in a section on 1960s social movements, but I've never seen anything like the four paragraphs covering this period in queer history.

What's even more remarkable is that they're covering the social history of queers, not just political history:

In the 1920s, gay and lesbian subcultures became more established and relatively open in some cities, including New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and Baltimore. The Captive, a play about lesbians, opened in New York in 1926, and some movies included unmistakable homosexual references. Novels with gay and lesbian characters circulated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In Chicago, the Society for Human Rights was organized to advocate equal treatment. A relatively open gay and lesbian community emerged in Harlem, where some prominent figures of the Renaissance were gay or bisexual. In the early 1930s, the nation's largest gay event was the annual Hamilton Lodge drag ball in Harlem.....

And then, three paragraphs later:

The late 1920s and early 1930s brought increased suppression of gays and lesbians. New state laws gave police greater authority to prosecute open expressions of homosexuality....In 1929 Adam Clayton Powell, a leading Harlem minister, launched a highly publicized campaign against gays. Motion-picture studios instituted a morality code that, among its wide-ranging provisions, prohibited any depictin of homosexuality....

There are at least three reasons why it's exciting that this stuff appears on p. 737 of Making America, 4th edition, copyright 2006 (!) by Houghton Mifflin. Well...okay...four reasons, since it would be kind of weird if I didn't note the remarkable fact that the textbook's authors - rightly or wrongly - based by far their longest discussion of a queer topic in large part on the work of my advisor. I mean, that's pretty cool.

Beyond that, though, there's nothing remarkable about the standard academic habit of judging broad survey textbooks in terms of how much weight it gives to one's own small subspecialty and by how faithfully it seems to represent it. But it's not a standard academic habit that queer historians have, up to now, generally had many opportunites to exercise. You wouldn't have expected to find anything at all about gay, lesbian, or queer people or experiences. In fact, I would have guessed we'd be struggling to prevent the brief mentions of the Stonewall Riots from being excised from textbooks upon the demands of red-state local school boards. (And, I might add, we are struggling in many places to keep health curricula that don't consist of rhapsodic paeons to abstinence before marriage - or worse, that doesn't "teach" kids about condoms in terms that somehow, mysteriously seem to imply that they pretty much always break and are no protection at all. And, I mean, after all, the best way to get teenagers not to do something is to tell them not to do it. Right? Those religious-right folks sure do have the teenage mindset down pat.)

In fact, up till now I could pick out the "inclusive" textbooks just by looking up Stonewall in the index; if there was a sentence on it somewhere, it was one of the good textbooks, and if there wasn't, it was unfortunate. And while the Stonewall Riots a well-known and important event, of course, but, as Terence Kissack once put it in the Radical History Review, almost the entire corpus of scholarship on the gay and lesbian movement has sought to argue against the idea that gay freedom was born at the Stonewall.

A third reason is that maybe I'll get a job someday?

By the way, at the back of the book, which even covers the country's vocal debate over same-sex marriage in 2004, there is one of those little shaded textbook "boxes" that defines key terms - and the terms being defined are Defense of Marriage Act and civil unions.

Microsoft's reversal on lgbt rights

Microsoft has already gotten some bad press, but it's important that they keep hearing from people. I'm pasting in a list of contacts below.


********** TAKE ACTION **********

1. Call Microsoft's director of Government Relations,
Jack Krumholtz, at tel. 202-263-5900

2. Contact these other contacts for Microsoft and its
public relations reps

- Jim Desler, Microsoft US
425-703-6061
jdesler@microsoft.com

- Dirk Delmartino,
Microsoft Europe
+32 (0)2 550 06 21
dirkdelm@microsoft.com

- The firm handling public policy for Microsoft in DC:
The Glover Park Group
Washington, DC
202-337-0808

- The firm handling Microsoft's "rapid response" to
questions:
Waggener Edstrom Rapid Response Team
rrt@wagged.com
503-443-7070

- Media Relations for Microsoft
Global Communications & Television
(212) 339-9920
mediarelations@gctv.com

- Microsoft Investor Relations
Curt Anderson
(425) 706-3703

- Walt McGraw, Edelman, (206) 223-1606,
walt.mcgraw@edelman.com

- Shon Damron, Edelman, (323) 857-9100,
shon.damron@edelman.com

- Carlos de Leon,tel. 425-703-3824, or
carlosde@microsoft.com

- Katie Goldberg, tel. 206-268-2244, or
katie.goldberg@edelman.com

3. Demand that Microsoft return the award it received
from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center. We don't
give corporate bigots awards, and we don't expect them
to keep such awards under false pretenses. If
Microsoft has now rethunk its position on defending
civil rights, then give back the damn award:

Per Microsoft's own Web site:

"Microsoft has been honored for its pioneering work on
behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community with the annual Corporate Vision Award of
the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center."

Sex roles - or more bizarre deviant behavior

"When students tell me that they picked the 'wrong'--say, sociology--topic, I related them to the agonies and ennui that fellow candidates who chose 'in' topics on sex roles or more bizarre types of deviant behavior are experiencing."

- David Sternberg, How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation (1981)

NGLTF assails new pope's record of "venomous hatred"

>Tuesday, April 19, 2005
>The Task Force On the Election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope
>
>MEDIA CONTACT:
>Task Force Communications Department
>Roberta Sklar, Director of Communications
>media@thetaskforce.org
>646-358-1465
>
>National Gay and Lesbian Task Force On the Election of
>Joseph Ratzinger as Pope
>
>"Today, the princes of the Roman Catholic Church elected as
>Pope a man whose record has been one of unrelenting,
>venomous hatred for gay people, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
>In fact, during the reign of John Paul II, Cardinal
>Ratzinger was the driving force behind a long string of
>pronouncements using the term 'evil' to describe gay people,
>homosexuality, and marriage equality. As a long-time
>Catholic from a staunchly Catholic family, I know that the
>history of the church is full of shameful, centuries-long
>chapters involving vilification, persecution, and violence
>against others. Someday, the church will apologize to gay
>people as it has to others it has oppressed in the past. I
>very much doubt that this day will come during this Pope's
>reign. In fact, it seems inevitable that this Pope will
>cause even more pain and give his successors even more for
>which to seek atonement."
>
>- Matt Foreman
> Executive Director