Women Allowed to Fight in Combat in the Military

The Marine Corps is under orders to open up its ground combat units - one of 

the last all-male bastions in the military -- to women, but it has been unable to 

find any female capable of making it through its three-month infantry officer 

course.

Beginning in September 2012, 26 women have attempted the course and all of them have been 

forced to drop out -- most on the first day. Despite that zero percent success rate, Brigadier 

General George Smith, the officer in charge of the program, maintains that the Marine 

Infantry Officer Course "is designed just right" and there are no plans to change it. "The 

realities of combat aren't going to change based on gender," Smith says. "The enemy doesn't 

care whether you're a male or female."

The course begins with a Combat Endurance Test, a series of physical and mental challenges spread out over 16 miles. The Marines - both men and women -- never know what's coming next or how long they have to complete the test.

Although no women have passed the officer course, 122 have made it through the less demanding enlisted infantry training, a success rate of 34 percent. But Pvt. Nisa Jovell, who passed with flying colors, tells Martin that women are not meant for the infantry. "We are not built for it, and I'm not saying we can't do it, what [men] do, but our body structure is different." Jovell says women's hips make it more difficult for them to carry the heavy loads required for combat. "The hip problem is definitely a big deal."

In combat, Marines are frequently required to carry a pack that, according to Brig. Gen. Smith, "very likely exceeds 100 lbs., and probably gets up above 130 lbs. in some cases. Often this is more than the women weigh.

It will be interesting to watch what happens now that the  ban on women serving in combat has been lifted. Will a new breed of women emerge who can physically make it through the rigorous training? Will the training and expectations to pass the tests be required to change? Will women be required to register for the draft, should there be one? We will have to wait and see...

Psychologists On Continuum Theory of Sexual Orientation

Washington State University researchers have established a categorical distinction between people who are heterosexual and those who are not. By analyzing the reported sexual behavior, identity and attraction  of more than 33,000 American adults they found that 3 percent of men and 2.7 percent of women are not heterosexual.   They also found notable issues on several mental health fronts.

The findings are a clear departure from the homosexual-heterosexual continuum used to describe sexual orientation since it was hypothesized by sexologist Alfred Kinsey in 1948. The findings do support more recent biological hypotheses of sexual orientation.

The study also identified several alarming mental health issues among non-heterosexuals. Nearly three out of ten non-heterosexual men--roughly twice that of heterosexual men--met the diagnostic criteria for depression. Non-heterosexual women were much more likely to abuse or depend on alcohol. Non-heterosexual men and women were more likely to meet the criteria for anxiety and other mood  disorders and to think about suicide. The researchers considered the social stigmatization of gays, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals could be a factor in their mental health.

The researchers, by actually getting some understanding of how to categorize people and the unique challenges they face, got a lot more insight into their well-being and their experiences. The USU psychology department used data from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, which conducted personal interviews with more than 35,000 randomly selected adults. The survey asked respondents about which genders they've had sex with, getting at the behavior studied by Kinsey, as well as their sexual identity and who they're most attracted to. Attraction has only recently been regularly studied.

The researchers used a set of statistical methods called taxometrics, which was developed specifically to determine if people are distributed on a spectrum or if they are part of meaningful groups, or taxons. The statistics showed that people at some point are crossing a threshold between one group and anterior group. Why the do it cannot be answered in this study. But that they do it tells researchers they should be looking at that question, not as much at the continuum question. The most radical, extreme version of that would be to say Kinsey led a lot of this research down the wrong path as much as he was a pioneer whose work helped destigmatize same-sex relationship and inclinations.

The researchers' findings have numerous implications. Foremost is the ability to home in on the mental health impact of cultural issues non-heterosexuals are more likely to face. The findings are also consistent with those of biologists who examine how genes and hormones shape sexual orientation. 

Another implication of the findings  is they leave little room for calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice. A lifestyle does not fit into a taxon. People who use the language of 'choice' and 'lifestyle' are negating 'born that way' or any of the terminology that would assume that these are genuine differences that are legitimate. The findings also go against the notion of "conversion therapy," which ostensibly would move a person along a continuum toward heterosexuality. Conversion therapy is fundamentally changing who they are. You can't do that in psychology. Rather, the taxometric results establish a group of people that are, in effect, bona fide heterosexuals. Then there's another group that is not a continuum but an assemblage, a variety of people united in their same-sex sexual orientation but who may reflect diverse sexual identities.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           f

State Laws Addressing LGBT Nondiscrimination

The are no federal laws banning discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. Within the states there is a sharp split, with some enacting protections and a majority opting not to. According to LGBT-rights advocacy groups, here is the latest breakdown...

28 states have no explicit statewide protections for sexual orientation and gender identity:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.

17 states and the Columbia prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington.

3 states prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations: New Hampshire, New York, Wisconsin. The laws in these states don't encompass gender identity. However, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is issuing an executive order that will soon extend protections to transgender people.

Massachusetts prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations. There is an effort underway to extend the public accommodation protections to transgender people.

Utah prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing. Its law does not cover public accommodations.

It is important for all LGBT people to consider these laws when deciding on where to live, work, get married, have children. We still have a long way to go to be protected by law. Hopefully, there will be some federal laws put into place in the future that will ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Psychological Issues of Homophobic People

Homophobic attitudes may say a lot about the person who holds them, new research suggests. A new study of university students in Italy revealed that people who have strongly negative views of gay people also have higher levels of psychoticism and inappropriate coping mechanisms than those who are accepting of homosexuality.

That doesn't mean that homophobic people are psychotic. Psychoticism is a personality trait marked by hostility, anger and aggression toward others. The study suggests that people who cling to homophobic views have some psychological issues. The study is opening a new research avenue, where the real disease to study is homophobia.

Earlier research has found homophobia to be a complex subject, with some studies suggesting that people with visceral negative reactions to gays and lesbians often harbor same-sex desires themselves Other studies, though, contest that idea, and suggest that homophobic people are truly averse to same-sex attraction. Other factors--such as religion, sensitivity to disgust, hyper-masculinity and misogyny--seem to play a role in anti-gay beliefs.

The first research on homophobia was done by Jannini and his colleagues. Their findings were written up in the Journal of Sexual Medicine published September 8, 2015.  No one had ever looked at the mental health or psychopathology of homophobic people. In the new study, the researchers asked 551 Italian university students, ranging in age from 18 to 30, to fill out questionnaires on their levels of homophobia as well as their psychopathology, including levels of depression, anxiety and psychoticism. The homophobia scale required participants to rate how strongly they agree or disagree with 25 statements. 

The students also answered questions about their attachment style, which categorizes how people approach relationships. The "healthy" attachment style is known as secure attachment, in which people feel comfortable getting close to others and having others get close to them. People who are insecurely attached, on the other hand, might avoid intimacy, become too clingy or desire closeness but feel uncomfortable trusting others.

Finally, the students answered questions about their coping strategies--defense mechanisms people use when they fact unpleasant or scary situations. Defense mechanisms can be healthy ("mature") or unhealthy ("immature"). 

Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found. People with "fearful-avoidant" attachment styles, who tend to feel uncomfortable in close relationships with others were significantly more homophobic than those who were secure with close relationships. The researchers also found that people with higher levels of immature defense mechanisms were more homophobic than those with mature defense mechanisms. 

High levels of hostility and anger, measured as psychoticism, were also linked to homophobia, the researchers found. But other mental health issues had the opposite association: Depression and neurotic defense mechanisms were linked with lower levels of homophobia. 

The findings position homophobia as a trait more often seen in dysfunctional personalities, but personality isn't the whole story. Homophobia is a "culture-induced disease" which interplay with factors like religion and conservative values.

aksjkjdkfjkjd

LGBT Lives Net Yet Free, Equal or Secure

The question of what comes after the marriage cases ignores the reality that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s lives are not yet free, equal, secure even with the positive outcome of the Supreme Court decisions.

So what should we do now? First, reframe the LGBT political and legal agenda to positively address the life chances and lived experience of every queer person. Second, build infrastructure, coalitions and political strategy to advance LGBT people’s interests in the Southern and Midwestern US. Third, create a political strategy with allies (labor, POC, women) to win and secure progressive outcomes in key states over the next two decades. Fourth, put massive amounts of funds into developing the leadership of young progressives—queer and straight. Fifth, create a specific anti-fascist infrastructure of social media, legal, research and watchdog groups to expose and defeat the right wing culturally and politically.

In sum, the work ahead for queers is to be transformative, not transfixed.

Confused? Spinning around from outrage to glee to WTF? Progressive Supreme Court watchers have good reason to be perplexed. During the past few days we have been stunned, if not surprised, by the stream of awful decisions flowing forth from SCOTUS including the erosion of the right to remain to silent, a further weakening of affirmative action and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act. Then we greet two happier decisions eroding legal discrimination against same-sex couples in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases. What’s going on?

It’s tempting to chalk up these split decisions to a divided court in general, and the quirks of one Justice Anthony Kennedy in particular, or to understand these results as the uneven ups and downs of overlapping social movements. Neither of these assessments is wrong. But there is a broader context that we must consider if we want to create a broad and effective movement for social and economic justice.

Since the 1980s, US public policy has moved in a more or less coherent direction—toward the deregulation of corporations, the privatization of social welfare, the strengthening of the security and surveillance functions of the state. While maintaining the formal legal equality won by social movements during the 1960s and ’70s, policy-makers have undercut the substantive, though limited, redistribution of political and economic power accomplished in the US since the 1930s. For instance, rather than continue affirmative steps to democratize public education from pre-school through college, governments at all levels have eroded access in myriad ways, by raising tuition, narrowing curricula and privatizing schools. We still have a public education system open to all, but the experience of schooling is increasingly unequal across divides of race and class. We are barely maintaining the basic right to early-term abortion, but this and other reproductive rights are also increasingly eroding via differential access to reproductive healthcare.

This is the context within which to grasp the logic of the recent Supreme Court decisions. The undermining of affirmative action and the frontal attack on voting rights are based on the formal legal neutrality of supposedly color-blind policy. Such formal equality leaves the history of racism and the current reality of persistent wide racial disparities out of the frame. The decisions on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 move haltingly toward very limited formal legal equality for same-sex conjugal couples. Marital privilege in general is maintained. Myriad historical and current sources of queer social and economic misery are not addressed—homeless queer youth, elder poverty and isolation, transgender healthcare. Looked at this way, this stream of decisions is basically consistent despite the flip-flopping role of Justice Kennedy.

The implications for the future of LGBT social movements are clear. Sure, when legal inequalities are eroded (the two same-sex marriage cases did not fully eliminate formal inequality) there is cause for celebration. But the history of civil rights struggles in the United States shows us that formal legal equality does not provide more resources, greater political power or better lives. Too often, legal equality is an empty shell that hides expanded substantive inequalities. To move forward toward a better world for queers we need to form broad alliances for the achievement of real social justice: Get money out of politics, fight for universal social benefits (healthcare, child care, retirement) not tied to marriage or employers, expand the power of working people, demand government transparency, go to the root causes of persistent racial inequalities, endorse sexual and gender freedom. Queer people are affected by all of these issues, not only the last ones. We can’t be the mostly single-issue movement that our major organizations have been. We don’t lead single-issue lives.

Growing Rights In Some Countries And Worsening Or Removal of Rights In Others

There seems to be a link between growing rights for LGBT's in some countries and worsening or removal of rights in others. Every advance seems to be accompanied by a backlash. To a certain extent that is what is happening on a global scale now--the advances that are being made in some parts of the world encourage a backlash in other parts of the world.

There are more than 75 countries where homosexuality is still criminalised. Forty-two of them are former British colonies so we can see where the legacy comes from. The number of countries legalising same-sex marriage continues to grow, with Denmark, Brazil, France and New Zealand just some that joined more progressive countries that had legalised earlier.

There are some places in the world where LGBT rights are worsening. In Iran, a place where homosexuality is punishable by death, this year the country's official who works on human rights described homosexuality as "an illness that should be cured". Gay rights are no better in many other Middle Eastern countries. There are 28 African countries where homosexuality is illegal.

Parts of Latin America remain the standard for equality for LGBT rights. Argentina's Gender Identity Law 2012 allowed the change of gender on birth certificates for transgender people. It also legalised same-sex marriage in 2010, giving same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples, including the right to adopt children. Uruguay and Mexico City also allow equal marriage and adoption.

In Asia, LGBT groups are making progress, if slowly. Last year, Vietnam saw its first gay pride rally and this year's event will launch a campaign for equality in employment. There is rumour that the country's ministry of justice has backed plans to legalise gay marriage, after the ministry of health came out for marriage equality in April.

In Russia, gay rights are moving further away from other European countries. Gay teenagers are being tortured and forcibly outed on the Internet against a backdrop of laws that look completely out of step with the rest of Europe. In what is being described as rolling the "status of LGBT people back to the Stalin era", President Putin has passed a number of anti-gay laws, including legislation that punishes people and groups that distribute information considered "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations". The country also now has powers to arrest and detain foreign citizens believed to be gay, or "pro-gay".

We have a US president who supports gay marriage, and now a pope who, if not exactly signing up to equality for all, is at least starting to talk in language less inflammatory than his predecessor. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?" he told an assembled group of journalists on the papal plane back from his tour of Brazil. Then he went on to criticise the gay "lobby" and said he wasn't going to break with the catechism that said "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". Still, for a brief moment it looked like a minor breakthrough.

There is a widening gap currently between those places in the world where strides are being made for equality and those where a raft of anti-homosexuality legislation is coming into force. Perhaps the dichotomy is inter-connected whereas one movement moves toward improvement the other is proportionately challenged. There is no denying that whether positive or negative, the energy around homosexual equality is running high. Who knows where we will end up?

We Did It!!!!! "I do, I do, I do"

What About Lesbian’s Kids?

My son showed me a letter from one of his high school teachers. He had asked her for a letter recommending him to National Honor Society, which exemplifies excellence in scholarship, leadership, character and service.

The letter was glowing. As I read the first page I was pleased me to see how well she had recognized his dedication, passion and spirit. When I got to the second page, however, I found myself stuck on a paragraph so troubling that all I could do was read and re-read it.

“…sometimes his peers have ridiculed him for unconventional domestic living arrangements. It appears to have made him stronger and yet he seems to not turn cold to the humans who surround him.”

I was dismayed and concerned. As a psychotherapist and a parent, I had always paid close attention to my son’s emotional development. My primary focus for the seventeen years I’d been a mother was to provide a healthy, steady, loving environment for my son.

As I read her statement again, I became painfully aware of the challenges children who have “different” living situations must face. They are constantly dealing with the ignorance and prejudicial attitudes of society.

There are many children who fall into this category. Consider the children who are not Christian who are inundated with all the activities of the Christmas season? What about children whose parents have divorced have two families with which they are navigating back and forth? What about children of different or mixed races or religions? What about children who had a parent die? What about children who are adopted? What about children whose mother conceived them through artificial insemination? These children do not have a choice. They need to be supported and encouraged to be themselves not to be defined by circumstances.

Just as I was gathering my senses to call the teacher to discuss her perceptions (and beliefs about them), the mail arrived. On the front cover of Newsweek magazine was Melissa Etheridge and her pregnant partner with the caption: “CAN GAY FAMILIES GAIN ACCEPTANCE/ WHAT IT’S LIKE FOR THE KIDS”.

The article by Barbara Kantrowitz talked about the emergence in the last few years of gay parents who are coming out of hiding and finding a place for their families in the mainstream. She estimated that there were 6 million to 14 million children in this country with at least one gay parent.

I jumped to the part of the article that addressed the effect of a lesbian lifestyle on the kids. Kantrowitz said, “There are no long-term studies available of what the effects of growing up in such a family might be. In a comprehensive 1992 summary of studies of gay parenting, it was concluded that the children are just as well adjusted (for example, they do not have any more psychological problems and do just as well in school) as the offspring of heterosexual parents.”

I decided to talk this over with my son before calling his teacher. I wanted to get his input. He told me that his teachers had expressed the most negativity about his living situation. His peers were quite accepting because he was. Well-meaning teachers had offered comments to him over the years including suggestions like his “needing male role models” because of his ‘home life’.” He had found this humiliating.

“Actually,” he said, “I am very grateful that you are a lesbian. You have the courage to be who you are, so I can too! I don’t even have to question whether or not you’d approve of whoever I am. That is a tremendous freedom that most of my friends don’t have.”

I decided to mull the situation over for a few weeks. I knew I could find an approach to communicating my viewpoint that would be constructive and have a positive outcome with his teacher.

During this time I ran across a sentence in a movie review by Mona Smith. “Within the Native American community, homosexuality was traditionally associated with the power to bridge worlds.”

I was struck by the truth of these words. They began to help me relax into a deeper understanding about the opportunity these children from not-the-norm homes could provide for people who either had not encountered or given thought to their circumstances. These children really did have the power to bridge worlds by bringing more consciousness about “diversity” out into the open.

When I reached a space within myself where I felt no animosity, anger or point to prove, I knew I was ready to discuss the letter with his teacher. I decided to start our conversation at the place where we were in alignment: concern for my son’s emotional well-being. Through our compassionate and honest conversation we both agreed that unexamined judgment creates fear and separation. Humanity’s hope for change can come through the children who know and live the oneness of diversity.
I know that my son and other children like him, simply by being who they are, are offering the world a powerful and vitally important chance to understand, experience new awareness and accept another definition of “family”.

A Tribute To Matthew Shepard

On October 12, 1998, Matthew Shepard, a student at the University of Wyoming, died after being brutally attacked in what was reported by news media as a hate crime because of his homosexuality. His friends and family described him as a friendly and outgoing young man who had great passion for equality. He was someone who always stood up for the acceptance

of peoples’ differences.

There was an enormous outpouring of public outrage both nationally and around the world at this hideous tragedy. Ellen DeGeneres, a courageous lesbian who is highly visible and loved by many in our society, hosted his memorial service in Washington, D.C. The incident challenged millions of people to stop and think about hate crimes in all its forms. Matthew’s torturous death changed the way we think about, talk about, and deal with hate and judgment. The incident continues to have a strong influence on our awareness and growing consciousness.

Throughout recorded History, homosexual activity has been repressed by certain governing groups and members of society under punishment of torture, mutilation, death and social ostracism. Laws to this effect were in force in Europe from the fifth to the twentieth centuries, and is still practiced in Muslim countries today. Homosexuals were killed in staggering numbers during the Holocaust by the Nazi Germans. Between 1996-2001 the Taliban in Afghanistan eliminated homosexuals. Countries where homosexuality is still punishable by death in present-day include Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

It is no wonder than so many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people have hidden their identity and found safety “in the closet”. In recent years large numbers of GLBTs have become part of a movement that has created more visibility, unity and solidarity and has begun to normalize different domestic choices. It is no surprise that Matthew, growing up as this movement was gaining momentum, felt he could publicly be who he was.

Violence against LGBT people can include threats, physical and/or sexual assault, rape, torture, attempted murder and murder. These actions come from cultural, religious, or political mores and biases. LGBT attract hate and hate crimes by individuals or groups, or from government enforcement of laws targeting people who are perceived to violate heterosexual rules and collective protocols of gender roles. Equating same-sex relationships with sex kindles these myopic opinions.

Wikipedia states that in the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were founded on perceived sexual orientation. 61% of these attacks were against gay men, 14% against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals, while attacks against GLBT people at large made up 20%.

Matthew’s suffering was undeniably the brutal victimization of an innocent human being. One of the things Matthew’s death did to challenge pubic awareness about hate, judgment and issues of diversity was to bring to the forefront questions about the meaning of human rights.

The GLBT movement has made headway in recent years in some states addressing the human rights of those who live a same-sex lifestyle or identify themselves as GLBT. Considerable resistance has produced a heated and stimulating dialogue that has been met with a small smattering of acceptance. This resistance has exposed the hatred that exists toward anyone different from the privileged, close-minded few who believe the illusion that they define society. It has made them publicly admit their disregard for the existence and acceptance all people.

The resistance is personal, political and has its foundation largely defined by religious beliefs. The current gay issues have pressured churches with questions like denying gay clergy to serve as leaders. This has split congregations and caused them to break apart. Churches have struggled to figure out what to do with gay parishioners. Some have rejected and alienated them from practicing their faith. This has been a hypocritical and embarrassing exposure of their lack of inclusion and judgment that their entire doctrine is professed to be built upon.

So church and state are in a power struggle against the gay movement. As we gather strength in numbers, have and adopt children, occupy positions in politics and places of leadership in religion, the issues are heating up. We are living in a time with similar struggles that faced African Americans and Women when they fought for and won their rights as people who are human beings.

Matthew’s murder has brought national attention to the issue of hate legislation at state and national levels. On March 20,2007 The Matthew Shepard Act was introduced as federal bipartisan legislation in the United States Congress. Its purpose was to extend hate crimes to include gay and lesbian individuals, women, and people with disabilities. The bill passed the House of Representatives on May 3rd, 2007. Similar legislation is expected to pass in the Senate. President Bush has indicated, however, that he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.

I had the privilege to hear Matthew Shepard’s mother speak on a University Women’s Studies circuit not long after he was murdered. I was surprised to find the theatre packed with people who had come to respectfully hear what she had to say.

She spoke softly, yet deliberately. I was struck with her candidness, her authenticity, and her wisdom. It was clear that she was determined to use the untimely loss of her son to make a difference in the world.

She began by sharing with us the letter she had read to the jury before the two young men who tortured her son were sentenced to life imprisonment for Matthew’s murder. The letter’s intent was to present Matthew as a person who was deeply loved by his parents, his brother, other relatives, countless friends and his community. It mentioned the dreams he had for his life, his thoughtfulness and kindness, his passion to live life fully. The letter addressed her loss as his mother, and how this loss had transformed everything in her life.

Then she talked with moving compassion about the families of the two young abusers, whose lives were also devastated by their children’s actions. With much soul searching, Judy Shepard and her husband had chosen not to hate the individuals responsible for Matthew’s murder. They had come to the realization that if they hated these men, the hatred would perpetuate their grieving and produce the very same negativity that had fueled the young men’s actions. Then, they too, would be victimizers. Their courageous stance on this spared the men from the death sentence and instead they were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Following the letter, she continued her talk by sharing stories of Matthew’s “coming out.” Though her stories were filled with warmth and humor, her message was strong: Everyone must exercise their right to be who they are. We can’t expect people to accept us if we are ashamed to show who we are. This is the only way things will change. It is dangerous to continue to hide.

She challenged society’s part in creating a culture and climate that could allow such hate crimes. She reminded us that we, as Americans, were all victims of the hate crime known as 9/11. She emphasized that those who understand the destruction that can come from hating others must come forward and show all those who are stuck in fear-based thinking that it is NOT acceptable to hate.

Judy Shepard’s message challenged the current attitude, which she described as the old way of thinking. By her example, I could sense she was helping those of us in the audience see the world in a new way. She spoke of the potential that could be brought to the world if hating others was eliminated.

She posed the question of what might happen if every person felt free enough to be all they could be. She pondered about what would happen if we stopped projecting our fears onto women, the poor, gays, and people of color, different religions, and other countries? She challenged us to consider owning our part in creating human suffering. She wondered if owning our own hatred would instead give us the potential to manifest a world of global unity, care, support and love?

She went on to say that each time we judge someone who is different from us and treat them with hatred, we add to the collective darkness. Every time we do not allow ourselves to be out as who we are, we push our light into the shadows and give power to the collective darkness.

Judy Shepard’s commitment to educate people through her speaking engagements promotes a greater understanding of gay issues and crimes of violence. Being an inspiring woman who is living fully who she is and standing up to speak her truth, she goes far beyond her words and delivers an enormously empowering, light-bearing message.

Judy Shepard set up the Matthew Shepard Foundation. I highly recommend that you view it. The web page exudes love, inspiration, compassion and hope. It deserves to be read and shared with others to acknowledge all the positive things they are doing to promote awareness about the issues Matthew’s death brought to the attention of the world.

In remembering Matthew Shepard, it is imperative that we do not forget the importance his life and death has given us. We must remember the awareness his suffering has brought to everyone in the world. We must not become indifferent to the issues of giving people of diversity the same rights as every other human. Many people have expressed their creativity about Matthew’s murder and the issues that provoked it through art, songs, writing, plays and movies. Three films: The Laramie Project (based on a play by the same name), The Matthew Shepard Story, and Anatomy of a Hate Crime have given us a wealth of material to remember what we must not forget.

Our challenge is to live in a way that respects and does not harm others. We need to honestly examine any beliefs we have that might interfere with our living from a place of compassion and caring for all of life. Only then can we begin to change the current and prevalent acceptance of violence. We must start with understanding and expressing this through ourselves before it can move through the family, our nation and the world. Each of us has the ability and responsibility to participate in compassionate nonviolence.

We need to develop a more expansive perspective and look at things from other people’s points of view. What would it take to understand that we are all part of the same world? Just as in a family, when one part isn’t working or one group of people are suffering, it affects everyone. When something as dynamic as human rights is disabled in society we must each do our part to address the problems and find a solution. Each of us is part of the whole.

When there is a problem, everyone shares a common interest. The common denominator for all of us with hatred, hate crimes, and judgment of diversity is that we are all human. Every person on this planet has the potential and capability to engage in truth, not harm others with our thoughts or actions, and evolve toward an accepting world.

When we feel judgment and hatred, it is an opportunity to practice tolerance and develop inner strength. Progress starts with each one of us. Hatred and what it destroys can only change when we love life and those who are different from us with an open heart. Then, Matthew’s death will not have been in vain.

Lesbian Friendships

Everyone knows the stereotype depicted in the joke, "What do lesbians do on their second date?"--"Rent a U-Hall". I have experienced and known many lesbians who have rushed into relationships.

The experience I have wanted to have, but hadn't in my lifetime with other lesbians is to be just friends. No emotional chaos. No co-dependency. No sex. No partnership. Simply friends. 

Most of my life-time closest friends are straight. Their preference has undoubtedly helped me keep the boundaries of friendship secure and protected.

Is this delama manifested because lesbians have fuzzy boundaries? Is it too difficult for lesbians to be alone and not in a relationship? Is lesbian identity only validated by being "with" someone?

Last year I met a lesbian sister while out walking our dogs. She was traveling through Colorado and was considering moving here. Over the next month and a half she was visiting we because friends. When she left we stayed in contact by phone. In July this year she moved here.

Our friendship has grown because we spend a lot of time together doing things. We bike, go to TaiChi twice a week, have lunches, take great delight in going to the mountains. Monday this week we went on an all-day road trip through Rochy Mountain National Park.

There has never been any confusion in our friendship about what the relationship is and is not. There are no underlying agendas. There is no sexual tension. In the same way as my straight friends--we are friends.

I am grateful that I have a lesbian friend. It is nice to share that way of being in the world with someone close who is not in an intimate relationship with me. Being lesbians gives us a commonality that feels very comfortable.

I appreciate the absence of pressure I experience in this friendship. Without the tension that often exists between lesbians to make the relationship into something more, I feel a freedom that is quite satisfying.

It is a great growing experience for me to develop a solid friendship with another single lesbian. It is strengthening to my sense of myself. It is fun. I feel blessed.

Girl Scouts of USA Trans Stance

Girl Scouts of the USA has long welcomed transgender girls in its troops. But after the anti-LGBT American Family Association recently targeted the organization, Girl Scouts leadership doubled down on their trans-inclusive stance. 

"Our position is not new," said Andrea Bastiani Archibald, the Girl Scouts USA's chief girl expert. "It conforms with our continuous commitment to inclusivity."

Placement of transgender youth will be handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. If the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.

The Utah Pride Center launched in April a Girl Scout troop that welcomes children from LGBT families and transgender girls. This brought the issue to the national attention of activists on both sides of the issue.

In 2012, a Denver troop attracted accolades and criticism for allowing a transgender girl to join its troop. One side effect: Supporters encouraged people to buy more cookies from their local troops while opponents advised people to stay away from the treats.

This decision has raised issues with conservative religious groups, which claim that the Girl Scouts would be allowing boys "who are confused" to join. Claiming that Girl Scouts have lost its "moral compass," the American Family Association created an online petition on May 13 to ask the organization to restrict the Girl Scout's membership to "biological girls" It attracted more than 38,000 e-signatures in a few days.

"This means girls in the organization will be forced to recognize and accept transgenderism as a normal lifestyle," the petition read. "Boys in skirts, boys in make-up and boys in tents will become a part of the program. This change will put young innocent girls at risk." Supporters of the petition wanted to "stop this nonsense by rescinding this dangerous policy."

The language of the petition evoked repeatedly debunked, transphobic arguments that equate transgender people with sexual predators--even though studies show transgender women, especially, are the most at risk of verbal and physical harassment when using gender-segregated spaces like restrooms and locker rooms, compared to their nontrans counterparts. 

In a statement published on the official Girl Scouts website May 14, the organization's chief leader clarified the organization's intention of "serving all girls.

A day after the petition was created the Girl Scouts founder Juliette Gordon Low was cited in a blog written by the current head of the organization, Archibald: "Our mission is to build 'girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place'. This extends to all members, and through our program, girls develop the necessary leadership skills to advance diversity and promote tolerance."

The Girl Scouts' stance means that one of the most popular activities for girls is clearly accessible to transgender girls, said Ellen Kahn, director of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation''s Children, Youth & Families program, which focuses on LGBT rights.

"Scouting is such a big part of many children's lives," Kahn said. To her, the Girl Scouts' stance tells young people that "if you're a girl, you belong here, and who are they to question someone's gender identity? They recognize that's not for them to do."

That doesn't mean the Girl Scouts USA can force local councils to welcome anybody. There are 112 Girl Scout councils across the country, all of which are separate nonprofit organizations. That's 2.8 million Girl Scouts -- 2 million children and 800,000 adult members who are mostly volunteers. The national organization provides guidance to local Girl Scout councils on many issues. It works with the councils to ensure that the Girl Scouts' mission to build girls of courage, confidence and character, extends to all girls, but it doesn't dictate policy to them.

The Girl Scouts of the USA, which is headquartered in New York City, first made waves with trans-inclusive policies back in 2011, when news broke that a Denver troop had welcomed a 7-year-old transgender girl into its ranks. Throughout the resulting backlash--including a brief, failed effort at a boycott of the famous Girl Scout cookies--the national organization's message was clear: Scouting is for all girls.

Supreme Court's Hearings on Same-sex Marriage

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples. The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying. The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. 

The Supreme Court justices today are hearing extended arguments, scheduled to run 2 1/2 hours, in highly anticipated cases about the right of same-sex couples to marry. The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, all of which had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That appeals court is the only one that has ruled in favor of the states since the 2013 Windsor decision.

Two related issues would expand the marriage rights of same-sex couples. The bigger one: Do same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry or can states continue to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman? The second: Even if states won't allow some couples to marry, must they recognize valid same-sex marriages from elsewhere?

The arguments of marriage-rights supporters boil down to a claim that states lack any valid reason to deny the right to marry, which the court has earlier described as fundamental to the pursuit of happiness. They say state laws that allow only some people to marry violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law and make second-class citizens of same-sex couples and their families. Same-sex couples say that preventing them from marrying is akin to a past ban on interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967. 

The states respond that they have always set the rules for marriage and that voters in many states have backed, sometimes overwhelmingly, changes to their constitutions to limit marriage to a man and a woman. They say a lively national debate is underway and there is no reason for courts to impose a solution that should be left to the political process. The states also argue that they have a good reason to keep defining marriage as they do. Because only heterosexual couples can produce children, it is in the states' interest to make marriage laws that encourage those couples to enter a union that supports raising children.

The Obama administration is backing the right of same-sex couples to marry, although its argument differs in one respect. The plaintiffs say that the state laws should fall, no matter what standard the court applies. The administration calls for more rigorous scrutiny than courts ordinarily apply to most laws, saying it is appropriate when governments discriminate against a group of people. 

That already is the case for claims that laws discriminate on a basis of race, sex and other factors. But the administration is silent about what the outcome should be if the court does not give gays the special protection it has afforded women and minorities. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.

A ruling that same-sex couples have a right to marry would invalidate the remaining anti-gay marriage laws in the country. If the court limits its ruling to requiring states to recognize same-sex unions, couples in states without same-sex marriage presumably could married elsewhere and then demand recognition at home.

The bans in 14 states would survive. Beyond that, confusion probably would reign. Some states that had their marriage laws struck down by federal courts might seek to reinstate prohibitions on gay and lesbian unions. Questions also could be raised about the validity of some same-sex weddings. Many of these problems would be of the Supreme Court's own making.

From October to January, the justices first rejected appeals from states seeking to preserve their marriage bans, then allowed court rulings to take effect even as other states appealed those decisions. The result is that the court essentially allowed the number of states with same-sex marriage to double.

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states, the District of Columbia and parts of Missouri. More than 500 marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples in Alabama this year after a federal court struck down the state's ban. But probate judges have not issued any more licenses to gay and lesbian couples since the Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt to same-sex unions in early March. Gay and lesbian couples may not marry in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, most of Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.

Gary Gates an expert at UCLA's Williams Institute on the demography of gays and lesbians in the U.S., estimated that there were 350,000 married same-sex couples as of February. Gates relied on Gallup Inc. survey date and Census Bureau information to arrive at his estimate. That's just 0.3 percent of the nations 242 million adults. Almost as many same-sex couples are unmarried, Gates said.

What are the next issues facing gay rights? One fight in the news this year is over efforts to carve out religious exemptions for people and institutions that object to same-sex marriage. It is clear that churches do not have to marry same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious tenets. What about county clerks? Can photographers refuse to shoot same-sex weddings? Can bakers decline to bake a cake for two men? 

Civil rights groups say they will continue pressing for other protections from discrimination against LGBT people in employment and housing, among other areas. Even if same-sex couples win the right to marry everywhere, people still can be fired because of their sexual orientation in more than half the states. We still have a long way to go to have the same human rights heterosexual couples take for granted.

Being Outed at 65

I moved to another part of the country from where I had been living a number of years ago after a difficult breakup with my partner of 15 years. When I arrived at my new home I knew no one. So, I made the conscious choice not to share anything of my past with anyone. No one knew I was a psychotherapist, a musician, a maskmaker an artist, a Ph.D. They did know I was a lesbian. They did know I had 3 Tibetan Spaniels and they knew I lived with a dog breeder/judge. 

This choice for privacy was a good one as it let me heal and recover from the trauma I had experienced. It allowed me the luxury of letting my healing to be an inner process. I did not have to explain or share my process outside of myself at all. This encouraged me to move from a challenging psychological process to a spiritual one. It was a good decision.

When I moved to Colorado 4 years ago I was re-united with friends from when I had lived here from '78 to '90. These friends knew everything about me and had kept in touch through the 20 plus years I had been gone. We continued our friendship where we had left off and I loved every minute of it. I had an instant support system. 

I also began making new friends. Only one, a lesbian herself, knew about my being a lesbian. All the others were met in different contexts and my lesbian identity never seemed to be a factor. I  am comfortable being a lesbian. In fact, I love the fact that I love woman. But, I also love being a grandmother, an Elder, a writer, a musician, a maskmaker, a mother, a sister, a friend. So after spending eight years prior to Colorado not sharing--it did not seem odd to keep my own council about my being a lesbian.

Last weekend I had a party for my 65th birthday. I invited a circle of 12 women--some my long-term friends and others new ones. I had requested that each come with a story. It seemed important to hear aspects and things from different parts of my life. 

The first one to tell their story was my lesbian friend. She started out telling about how we had met and how excited she was when she found out I was a lesbian. Oops! Oh no, I thought! I wondered how my new friends would feel not knowing such a big part of my life? How could I be friends with them and omit being a lesbian?

After I had time to reflect I realized several things. One is that I feel I have learned to set boundaries with my personal life. Not revealing everything is how you create privacy. That seems like a good thing. Another thing I became aware of is that at my age I am not as invested in being identified as a lesbian or any one thing. I am comfortable if people know or not. So far, no one has batted an eye...