Lady Gaga confesó su bisexualidad

Por: El Nuevo Día/ la Redacción de El Comercio / GDA

La cantante reconoció que le gustan los hombres y mujeres por igual

De ella se han dicho muchas cosas. Que es hermafrodita, que también le gustan las mujeres, que se quiere hacer múltiples operaciones para que su físico sea más femenino, y muchas otras cosas.

Si bien la mayoría de comentarios se trata más que nada de rumores, esta vez Lady Gaga ha confirmado uno de ellos: su preferencia sexual.

En una entrevista a la revista japonesa "Gisele", la intérprete de "Telephone" y "Bad Romance" confesó que es bisexual. La artista dijo que le gustan los hombres y las mujeres por igual.

Esta confesión ya se veía venir, luego de que Gaga posara para la edición japonesa de la revista "Vogue", en imágenes en las que sale vestida de hombre. Otra pista fue su aparición pública en un juego de béisbol, en el que se mostró semidesnuda besando a otra chica.

DALAI LAMA...

“A compassionate attitude opens our inner door, and as a result it is much easier to communicate with others. If there is too much self-centered attitude, then fear, doubt and suspicion come and as a result our inner door closes. Then it is very difficult to communicate with others” Dalai Lama

LA AGENDA DE CASA BLANCA: RESBALOSA CON EL TEMA GAY

INTERESANTE ENTREVISTA...

ADVOCATE.COM/JULY 3, 2010/Kerry Eleveld

In a wide-ranging interview with LGBT journalists and bloggers Thursday, White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said President Barack Obama had chosen to take steps at the agency level to eliminate inequities for same-sex couples and gave no indication he would move toward supporting full marriage equality.

Asked if the president would go beyond incremental fixes to address a lack of marital rights for same-sex couples before 2012, Barnes noted that the president “has consistently called for the repeal of [the Defense of Marriage Act]” and used his “executive authority” to help provide more benefits to same-sex couples through federal agencies.

“That’s the course that he has identified, that’s the course that he has supported,” Barnes said.

The Advocate followed up with, “Just to reiterate, he still supports civil unions ... that’s a separate-but-equal institution — and I’m wondering if he’s at any point going to move to embracing full equality rather than these smaller steps.”

Barnes responded, “I understand what you’re saying, but that’s the course he has set forth.”

The exchange took place during a briefing in which Barnes fielded questions for a little over an hour from eight pro-LGBT outlets — The Advocate, AmericaBlog.com, Bilerico.com, Gay City News, Keen News Service, Metro Weekly, Pam’s House Blend, and Philadelphia Gay News.

In her opening remarks to the group, Barnes said the Obama administration had moved the ball forward on LGBT equality yet acknowledged a level of frustration among LGBT advocates.

"We believe that in the last 18 months … we have taken more steps and made more progress with regard to the LGBT community than past administrations have," she said. "We would not argue that change has come as fast as we would want it to or as quickly as we would want it to, but we would certainly argue that in other contexts as well – it took us a year and a half to get the health care bill done and the same with other pieces of legislation that are priorities for us."

During the course of the hour, Barnes was pressed on whether the president would push harder to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), why the administration has not been more communicative with the LGBT community, if the president believes the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional, and whether the White House would fight any sort of poison-pill amendment that seeks to kill DADT repeal on the Senate floor.

What follows are short excerpts from several exchanges:

The Washington Blade asked whether the White House could push to pass both “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal and the ENDA as the congressional session winds down.

Barnes: DADT is obviously further down the queue just because the House has acted and the Senate Armed Services Committee has acted as well ...

We believe given the work that we’ve done with Congress and the DOD as well as the leadership in the relevant committees and the leadership in both houses that that’s moving forward.

With regard to ENDA, the president has consistently said that he supports ENDA, he supports an inclusive ENDA. There have been members of the administration who have testified in support of ENDA ... [Tom Perez from Department of Justice’s civil rights division and Stuart Ishimaru, who chaired the Equal Opportunity Employment Office]

The leadership [of the House and Senate] will have to decide how they are going to use floor time to move things forward ... and how aggressively they are going to be able to move given the time that’s left. But we have certainly indicated our support of those — ENDA, and you know the activity that’s taken place around DADT.

Metro Weekly asked about the White House’s lack of communication around defending DADT and DOMA in the courts and whether officials could clarify their rationale for doing so.

Barnes: Across the board ... there is a constant effort to better communicate the message and better communicate what we’re doing.

I would imagine that ... when there’s a filing, that it scrapes at the scab one more time. That it reminds people of the posture of the government one more time. But that doesn’t change the rationale behind what we have to do. I think the president has said this ... we can’t pick and choose the laws that we defend.

There may be a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of examples where the government has not defended a law that’s on the books. But we believe, the president believes, that given his office, he has to defend the law. But at the same time, I think we have done a better job of indicating in the briefs that that doesn’t mean we don’t believe that DOMA is discriminatory.

Pam’s House Blend asked, “Why brief us now ... this would have been much more productive if it had happened earlier on.” PHB also noted much displeasure among the LGBT grass roots and expressed concern that the only place the White House is getting its information from is the Human Right Campaign.

Barnes: First of all I would say, we are here now, and that reflects the desire to be engaged ... I would also say I believe my colleagues who are in the communications office and outreach office have had … very frequent communications and conversations with those of you seated at this table and others who aren’t at this table … There’s always a desire and an effort to do better, that's why we're sitting here now.

Keen News Service questioned why the president would defend laws that are unconstitutional, specifically DOMA.

Barnes: Because right now, it’s the law of the land. ... We believe that it’s our obligation to defend the law, if Congress had a rational basis for passing the law.

The president hasn’t made an argument about the constitutionality of the law, he’s just said that it’s discriminatory.

AmericaBlog asked whether the White House would "actively oppose" any amendments on the senate floor to the DADT repeal measure that might weaken or kill the measure.

Barnes: What I can tell you is that when we see any amendments that are filed, that we will continue to do what we did through the process in the House, which is, work to move this forward. Obviously if there is an effort to undermine repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" the president will fight -- wouldn't be supportive of that. At the same time, I can't sit here and walk through hypotheticals for amendments that I haven't seen or that haven't been filed.

HELENA KAGAN Y EL MATRIMONIO DEL MISMO SEXO

Las respuestas son clarísimas...

Advocate.com /June 30, 2010/Kerry Eleveld

In a third day of hearings for Elena Kagan, GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee continued to scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court nominee's military recruitment policy at Harvard, but they also tried to glean intelligence about her views on same-sex marriage -- with little success.

“Do you believe that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide?” asked Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

In light of the fact that the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 might be heard by the Supreme Court one day, Kagan said, “I want to be extremely careful about this question and not to in any way prejudge any case that might come before me.”

Grassley then turned to Baker v. Nelson, a 1970 case that challenged a Minnesota law denying same-sex couples the right to marry. After the Minnesota supreme court ruled the statute did not violate the U.S. Constitution, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately dismissed the case in a summary judgment citing the lack of a “substantial federal question.”

Grassley asked Kagan if she agreed with that decision and considered it “settled law,” thereby setting a precedent for all future cases.

Kagan responded that her “best understanding” of that ruling was that it held only “some precedential weight.”

“The view that most people hold, I think, is that it’s entitled to some precedential weight but not the weight that would be given to a fully-argued, fully-briefed decision.”

Grassley concluded his inquiry, noting that he was “disappointed” that Kagan didn’t view Baker v. Nelson as “settled law.”

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona later tried to nail down Kagan on whether she believed in a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Kyl recited the answer Kagan gave last year during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General in which she said, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

Kagan explained that her answer should be taken in the context of a response to a question about whether she would defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I was stating that I understood the law and that I accepted the state of the law,” she said, “and that I was going to perform my responsibility as Solicitor General.”

Kyl followed up by asking is she would say today “whether the Constitution could be properly read to include such a right.”

“I don't think that would be appropriate,” Kagan answered, invoking the marriage case that's wending its way through the courts.

Kagan has now completed her testimony; the Judiciary Committee will question outside witnesses on Thursday.

EL COSTO DEL PREJUICIO Y EL DISCRIMEN: CUANDO PREDOMINA LA JUSTICIA

Advocate.com Editors/June 30, 2010

A Yorkshire rugby club received a fine totaling $60,000 because its fans shouted antigay taunts at out player Gareth Thomas.

A Yorkshire, England, rugby club was hit with a fine totaling about $60,000 after fans taunted out player Gareth Thomas with antigay chants.

The fine from the Rugby Football League stems from insults hurled at Thomas during a match between his team, the Crusaders, and the Castleford Tigers on March 26.

According to Pink News, the RFL issued a statement that said, "Castleford were found guilty of unacceptable behavior, of breaching the RFL's respect policy, of misconduct by their supporters and of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the sport.

"The tribunal was chaired by his Honor Judge Rodney Grant, who criticised the club for failing to take steps to stop the homophobic chanting, for failing to identify the perpetrators, for failing to challenge the chanting and for their failure to undertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards."

Castleford is expected to appeal the decision, which requires it to pay half the fine immediately and the other half by the end of 2011.

Thomas, who came out in December, is reported to be “delighted” by the decision, according to a statement from his manager.

¡ EN CALIFORNIA LAS PAREJAS GAY NO EXISTEN !

Advocate.com /June 30, 2010/Dan Meyer

Same-sex couples in California are less than half as likely to have dependent health coverage than people in heterosexual marriages, according to a new study by the University of California, Los Angeles. The article, published in Health Affairs, covers only the state of California and concludes that gay male partners are 42% as likely to get employer-sponsored joint coverage as straight couples, while partnered lesbians have only 28% as much of a chance of getting coverage.

The article explains that employers may be refusing coverage to partners of their gay workers despite the 2005 California Insurance Equality Act, which says all companies that offer dependent coverage to married, heterosexual employees must make the same policies available to state-registered partners.

Data was collected from the California Health Interview Surveys conducted in 2001, 2003, and 2005. People who did not report their sexual orientation were not included, nor were those over the age of 65. The final sample contained about 64,000 women and 47,000 men.

"The exclusion of gay men and women from civil marriage and the failure of domestic partnership benefits to provide insurance parity contribute to unequal access to health coverage, with the probable result that more health spending is pushed onto these individuals and onto the public," the authors write.

¡ SOBERANO DESCARO EL DEL VATICANO CON EL TEMA DE LOS CURITAS DEPREDADORES SEXUALES !

Advocate.com /June 29, 2010/Julie Bolcer

On the last day of its term Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of a Vatican appeal to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses the Holy See of covering up alleged sexual abuse by a Roman Catholic priest.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Vatican had petitioned the high court to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the Vatican, as a sovereign state, enjoys immunity from the laws of another country.

“The lawsuit, filed by one of the priest's alleged victims in 2002, accuses the Vatican and U.S. church officials of shielding the Rev. Andrew Ronan from allegations of sexual abuse by transferring the priest from one diocese to another—a practice that the complaint says allowed the priest to dodge his accusers and abuse more children,” reports the Journal. “The lawsuit contends the Vatican is liable because it acted as the priest's employer.”

The case, Holy See v. John Doe, 09-1, may now return to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for review.

HELENA KAGAN EN LA PRUEBA DE FUEGO

Al parecer la posición de Helena no es muy clara que digamos, ¿o tal vez sí?

No vendría nada mal conocer su historial...

HRC Backstory.com/June 28th, 2010/Ty Cobb

Since being nominated to serve on the Supreme Court, no portion of Kagan’s career has received more attention than her enforcement of Harvard Law School‘s (HLS) anti-discrimination policy against military recruiters that discriminated against lesbian and gay students. Because she enforced HLS’s sexual orientation-inclusive anti-discrimination policy, Kagan continues to be portrayed by the right as “anti-military” – a criticism that is clearly unsupported by the facts. To understand this period of Kagan’s career, it is important to understand the history of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, the Solomon Amendment and HLS’s anti-discrimination policy.

In 1993, Congress passed the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, which prohibits openly lesbian and gay individuals from serving in the military. In response to the passage of this law, some institutions of higher learning began to prohibit military recruiters on campus. As a result, Congress passed a law commonly referred to as the “Solomon Amendment” in 1996. The Solomon Amendment empowers the Secretary of Defense to deny federal funds to institutions of higher learning that prohibit military recruiters on campus. Pre-dating either of these federal statutes is a 1979 HLS anti-discrimination policy that bars employers from using the Office of Career Services (OCS) to recruit law students if those employers discriminate on the basis of several factors, including sexual orientation. Because the military discriminates based on sexual orientation, their recruiters were barred by HLS’s anti-discrimination policy from using the services of OCS. HLS was not affected by the Solomon Amendment because it did not accept any of the federal funds restricted by the Solomon Amendment.

In 2002, the Department of Defense issued an interpretation of the Solomon Amendment that would have the effect of blocking all federal funds to Harvard University in its entirety if HLS did not lift its ban on military recruiters using OCS. In order to prevent the entire university from losing 15% of its operating budget, HLS created an exception to its anti-discrimination policy for military recruiters. When Kagan became Dean in 2003, she maintained this exception.

During Kagan’s first year as dean, she described the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law as “a profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order” in an HLS community email. In addition, she encouraged students to demonstrate against the law. As a vocal opponent of the law, Kagan also joined fifty-three other faculty members on an amicus brief in Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR) v. Rumsfeld, a case challenging the Solomon Amendment before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Almost a year and a half into Kagan’s term as Dean, the Third Circuit ruled in FAIR that the Solomon Amendment was unconstitutional. In response to the court’s ruling, Kagan ended the military recruiter exception to HLS’s anti-discrimination policy.

Prior to terminating the exception, however, Kagan went to great lengths to ensure that all students had access to military recruiters through the HLS Veterans Association. As one student veteran described, “if anything, Kagan was an activist in ensuring that military recruiters had viable access to students and facilities.” It was because of Dean Kagan’s ability to find a way to support the military while preserving Harvards’s anti-discrimination policy that Harvard’s military recruitment levels actually increased in some years during Kagan’s tenure as Dean.

Ultimately, Kagan reinstated the military recruiter exception in 2005 after the Department of Defense once again threatened to withhold federal funds from the entire university. In a 2005 email to the HLS community, Kagan stated:

“I have said before how much I regret making this exception to our antidiscrimination policy. I believe the military’s discriminatory employment policy is deeply wrong – both unwise and unjust. And this wrong tears at the fabric of our own community by denying an opportunity to some of our students that other of our students have.”

Kagan’s reinstatement of the exception was followed by a Supreme Court ruling in FAIR that upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment.

This episode in Kagan’s career provides important insight into her belief system. Distinct from many of the other positions taken by Kagan, her passion for enforcing HLS’s anti-discrimination policy and opposing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law seems uncharacteristically bold. Her rhetoric and action are indicative of a staunch advocate for anti-discrimination measures. When asked in her Solicitor General confirmation hearing why she passionately enforced HLS’s anti-discrimination policy, she stated that she believed that “the right thing to do was to defend that policy and to do so vigorously.” Once one looks at the facts involved in this episode in Kagan’s career, it is clear that she is not “anti-military;” her record shows that she enforced HLS’s anti-discrimination policy and opposed the discriminatory practices of the military, not the military itself.

Partial Contribution by Jessica Singleton, Legal Assistant.

LOS LITIGIOS GAY CREARÍAN CONFLICTO A HELENA KAGAN EN EL SUPREMO

Advocate.com /May 10, 2010/Kerry Eleveld and Andrew Harmon

Elena Kagan’s role as solicitor general could mean she’d have to recuse herself from several cases — including challenges to DOMA and “don't ask, don't tell" — if she were to join the Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama announced Monday that Elena Kagan, current U.S. solicitor general and former dean of the Harvard Law School, is his second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Should Congress confirm Kagan, however, it’s possible that she would recuse herself from several cases, including major gay rights suits, currently being handled by the Justice Department during her short tenure.

The cases in question include Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al, a suit challenging a section of the Defense of Marriage Act that was argued in federal court last week, and Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, a case involving “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Kagan’s ability to rule in those lawsuits as a Supreme Court justice would depend on the amount of input she had in them while serving at the Justice Department. Though neither case is currently before the court, Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of law at Chapman University, said Kagan might have taken part in the preparation.

“She may have had a role in [deciding] how the litigation proceeds, because the government wants to have a proper procedural posture in order to decide what positions it will take,” Rotunda said.

This is true for cases across the board. “There is no reason to single out LGBT-related issues," said Richard W. Painter, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School. "The recusal would apply to all cases she was involved with on any issue.”

It’s not always clear in which cases the solicitor general’s office has given its input, however. “If her name is on any [legal] brief, then it’s clear, but beyond that, it’s up to her disclosure,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.

While the decision would be left to Kagan, Chemerinsky said a recusal in, for instance, the Gill case challenging DOMA could prove problematic for LGBT advocates.

"If Kagan recuses herself, it certainly will hurt the challengers to DOMA because Stevens -- or his replacement -- would be so important for the challengers," he said. Based on the makeup of the court, conservatives and progressives could deliver a possible 4-4 split, which would mean that the lower circuit ruling would remain law. The court’s split decision would not set a precedent.

In a Monday afternoon press briefing, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration expects “about a dozen” recusals for Kagan next year and “less than half of that” the following year. But he did not name specific cases and he said he did not think the potential effect of her recusal on any cases had been given serious consideration during the nomination process.

By comparison, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who served two years at solicitor general before being confirmed, recused himself from 57 cases related to his work at that Justice Department, according to SCOTUSblog. Cont. ver link.

EL SUPREMO LE DICE NO A LOS CRISTIANOS

CRISTIANOS...la Real Academia Española Define CRISTIANO: Perteneciente a la religión de Cristo; Que profesa la fe de Cristo.

¡ El Cristo que yo conozco no llevaría a a sus hermanos al Supremo ! He aquí el resultado de la mala fe de los falsos…

Advocate.com Editors/June 28, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that a Christian student group that bars LGBT members and their allies cannot receive official recognition and funding from a public law school.

The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, centered on the Christian Legal Society at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. The student group refused membership to LGBT individuals and those who advocate for them, and sued when the university denied institutional support to the group in response.

According to the Associated Press, “The court on Monday turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.

“The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards ‘unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle’ as being inconsistent with that faith.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote that the legal society sought a “preferential exemption” from the university's all-comers policy. The judgment said that the group's First Amendment rights were not violated by the public college's decision.

“In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject CLS’s First Amendment challenge,” wrote Ginsburg. “Compliance with Hastings’ all-comers policy, we conclude, is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum. In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations. CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.”

Ginsburg was joined in the opinion by justices Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.