How forgettable have you become, Larry?

Many friends agree with me on this one...Larry King is fast becoming boring and forgettable. That is so true. Just like Barbara Walters, so many people have been seeing the bad and ugly side of journalism because of people like them. Wait...they used to be very good when they were neutral and not taking sides. Mr King (and Ms Walters)...Your viewers are very smart people. I know many people have stopped watching The View after Rosie left and stopped watching Larry King (when he had Paris Hilton on the show). I totally agree with the blogger below

Below,cut and pasted from Rosie O'Donnell's blog.
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2007

Dear Larry,
There are not many people who are blessed to have a position such as the one in which you find yourself today. I knew your name from years ago. I knew that if someone was on Larry’s show, it was a big deal. That guest would be smart, contributive, and poignant. I would walk away from your interviews, Larry, feeling as if I’d just been let in on a secret dinner conversation. I used to find your questions imaginative, original, and somewhat interesting and clever. Your suspenders, with matching ties… really, that is such a cute idea. It spells class all the way.

Your show used to have movers and shakers on it. Your show was once significant to the American society, as your show was not only entertaining, but educational and provokative as well. What a legacy you had going, Larry! Unheard of! Unprecedented! CNN! YOU! THE FIRST! GOOO LARRY!

Is it true you bumped Michael Moore from your show to interview a celebrity famous for her porn and drunk driving? Really? Remember Michael Moore? He made Farenheit 911? Changed how we Americans viewed the war? Perhaps your manorexia has caused your brain to eat itself, and you don’t recall. Or, maybe, CNN is owned by some neo-cons, and the decision wasn’t really up to you, it was up to the people who own CNN?

Either way, Larry, I am sure you are hitting yourself. I know, I can’t imagine if I had to be you and sit there across fom some poptart who’s labia has seen more sunshine than Cheney’s drunk chrome on a hunting afternoon. I can’t imagine what you will have to tell yourself as you prep for that interview in the makeup chair.

Just remember, Larry, as history is written, there will be proof spilled everywhere, like ink. The truth will berry-stain: impossible to forget stain… And you know what? I am going to look back at this time, a time when real journalists could have saved us all some grief by reporting truth instead of soaps, and I will laugh and say “Remember how Larry King dumped Michael Moore for Paris Hilton?”

Or maybe I won’t. I’ll probably have forgotten about you, Larry, and your gossip show. You just became forgettable.

Have a good interview, Larry. I’m off to see SICKO, and try to see about changing this world, not my ratings.

Sincerely,
Hollywood Farmgirl

Gay news from www.edgenewyork.com

Lesbian’s eHarmony Lawsuit Stirs Passions on Both Sides
by AMBROSE ABAN
EDGE New York City Contributor
Thursday Jun 21, 2007


It all started with a lesbian in San Francisco, Linda Carlson, who tried to post a personal ad on eHarmony.com, a popular dating site. She was apparently hoping to find love, but she ended up only getting her ad rejected. Her recent lawsuit has gotten bloggers, pundits and gay rights groups weighing in with a broad range of opinion.

eHarmony, a straight dating site, has long rattled the LGBT community by refusing to provide men-seeking-men and women-seeking-women options on its site. eHarmony’s 12 million members see it as playing to its own niche market: straight Christian singles (although not exclusively religious).

Dale Carpenter, Julius E. Davis professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School, believes that the lawsuit has merit and a chance of success.

"But since I’m not an expert in California law I do not know how high its chances are," says Carpenter, who contributes to Independent Gay Forum. "If this suit is successful then, yes, in California it would seem they must."

California has an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation. The lawsuit is being argued on the merits of that law. It is one in a series of similar lawsuits testing the limits of gender and sexual-orientation exclusion, here and in Canada.

Just as Carlson began her lawsuit, a Montreal man filed a human-rights complaint against Curves, a U.S.-based chain of women-only fitness clubs on the grounds he was denied membership. The case comes after a Montreal woman filed a sexual discrimination complaint after being evicted from Le Stud, a men-only bar in the city’s gay district. And a gay couple filed a lawsuit against Adoption.com for not allowing them to adopt kids based on sexual orientation.

Brian Chase, a counsel for Lambda Legal, says California law protects LGBT people from discrimination by places of public accommodation.

"The court will have to determine whether or not eHarmony’s policies are discriminatory and, if they are, whether or not e-Harmony has a legal defense that would excuse their discrimination," he says. "Cases involving disputes in cyberspace get a lot of attention because it’s a new area of law. The disputes can be quite contentious in part because the rules haven’t been clarified yet."

Some bloggers have been agreeing with the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. A new site, Chemistry.com, has been ridiculing eHarmony and is pointedly offering gay and lesbian entries. The brouhaha began last month after Barry Diller’s Chemistry started running television and print ads taking on the eHarmony’s gay ban. "Chemistry is not backing down from eHarmony’s threats," says Queerty, a gay blog.

"Discrimination sure is convenient, huh?," a senior blogger at Queerty writes. "It certainly is for Chemistry advertising agents, who concocted the aforementioned ads to prove their gay worth. In addition, they are certainly getting in the thick of the gays this and next weekend: the company has booked two ads in New York fag rag, Next Magazine.

"Something tells us eHarmony hasn’t booked any space in the weekly’s pages. Perhaps they are too busy fending off Carlson’s discrimination lawsuit." Will eHarmony’s anti-gay tenacity take them down? We fucking hope so," the blogger stresses.

But eHarmony members believe it is wrong to force it to change its business policy for a lesbian’s convenience. eHarmony’s owners insist they do not discriminate against gays because they disapprove of them, but because their psychological tests are not calibrated for the queer mind. And because the site is a niche site with its own unique niche market--millions of straight Christian singles--its unique selling point (USP) is its scientific matching system. Then there’s the whole no-gay-marriage aspect: eHarmony boasts its marriage-oriented goals.

Loyal eHarmony members are responding by calling out gay bloggers and their readers. "The LGBT community and all the new sites out there should learn from eHarmony’s phenomenal success and adopt its winning strategies instead, and not simply introducing a new site just to ridicule eHarmony, " a fan of eHarmony, Tim Geller, 44, a self-described single Christian, has written.

"There is a reason why it is a niche site with its own niche market, " a member of eHarmony wrote. "Site owners and gay bloggers must be responsible and must not take revenge. Chemistry must do it genuinely for the LGBT community with good intention and not with a mission to destroy the site or take its business or members away. That is revenge if you asked me. And revenge is no good to anyone."

eHarmony appears to be highly successful as a serious dating site. It is not a "hookup" site pretending to be a dating site, where it closes one eye and allows members and visitors to find their own matches by using photographs. Controlling the online crowd is no easy task for dating sites. eHarmony differentiates itself from other sites that allow members to find their own matches using pictures. Besides, the owners maintain that changes aren’t very "sticky" for its users. Abstaining from sex is part of eHarmony’s Christian ethos.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," went an eHarmony statement. "Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it’s just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted."

"Successful sites do create sex culture and self-exploration for love or money," Geller says. "Or in many cases, for the heck of it. We are not sure whether it is a good or a bad thing to allow men and women seeking each on the Internet like letting them look for a used daybed on Craigslist’s garage sales. For us, this is still new--a new way to find love, a complex issue, a complicated modern 21st century online tradition."

"eHarmony pleases its target market and pleases it all the way. What is so wrong about that?" asked a lesbian radio talk show host recently. "eHarmony should be respected and left alone as a site specializing in matching straight singles--men and women seeking each other with intentions to fall in love-not looking ’looking for now when online’ like most LGBT sites-get married and start a family."

Audacia Ray, author of "Naked on the Internet," adds, "I think constantly about what online culture is worth to lesbians, particularly what they’re making and participating in. User-generated content is shifting culture in a major way."

’As a single woman seeking a single man, I do not want to stumble upon a lesbian on my dating site, purposely or by accident.’
"As a single woman seeking a single man, I do not want to stumble upon a lesbian on my dating site, purposely or by accident," wrote an eHarmony user. "As it is, it is a long shot at finding compatibility on line, so I really appreciate eHarmony for connecting me with the right matches. I am not anti-lesbian, but for the love of God, I do not want to tell lesbians to fuck off for cordially or accidentally contacting me."

But do lawsuits like this eventually help or hurt the long-term goals of equal rights?

"Lawsuits like Carlson’s ultimately will not help the long-term goals of equal rights, and in fact they may hurt if people think that gays are trying to force antidiscrimination into every aspect of life, no matter how trivial and personal the underlying issue is," Carpenter says.

In fact, some members of popular lesbian dating sites, such as Lesbotronic.com, wonder what got into Carlson’s head when she tried to place an ad on a Christian, straight site like eHarmony.

"You don’t go around and sue everyone for not including your ’needs’ in their sites," wrote one eHarmony member. "That is not right. And you don’t go around push the boundaries and expect to have your cake and eat it too. And there are so many LGBT-based sites that lesbians can use socially, casually or seriously to find their matches. I would never use a lesbian dating site like Lesbostronic to find straight men and would never sue the site for not catering to me unless they reject my online job application".

There’s also the question of whether Carlson’s suit will force gay sites to open to heterosexuals.

"I have always been angered by eHarmony’s straight-only policy, which implies that gays and lesbians are not interested in long-term committed relationships (which is what eHarmony promotes). I hope LGBT wins through Carlson," says a gay activist in New York City. "I think they should allow gays and lesbians to look for partners there. The only reason they don’t is that they’re run by a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. As to gay sites allowing straights: sure, but I don’t think there will be much of a demand."

A Yahoo Personals executive agrees that the site is successful with its one-way policy compared with other dating sites "because, unlike Craigslist, it is not anonymous where people can post ads for just about anything. For example, if I wanted another lesbian to come over and piss on me and let me spank her while we clean up, I couldn’t with eHarmony." A male member of Craigslist, who is not a fan of eHarmony or Carlson, says that most members of the site are members of "dirty sites" too, so there is no point in believing that there is only one site that is "pure and holy".

Carlson’s lawyer Todd Schneider was reported as saying that the lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love." The lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join as a class action.

Blogger Janet Folger advises eHarmony to "stand strong for your freedom of conscience or you’ll invite a whole new batch of lawsuits from the Mary Kay LeTerneau’s of the world, because there’s no ’teachers seeking students’ category, the Pete the Pedophiles for age discrimination (no ’men seeking children"’ category), the Chris the Cross Dresser because there’s no category for cross dressers (and whatever they seek) leading people on-line to believe that he’s just a very ugly woman."

Carpenter, who also wrote about this lawsuit on Independent Gay Forum, says the dating service matches people based on a very long list of questions they answer about their likes and dislikes, lifestyle, philosophy, religious and political views, and so on. "That’s part-for-the-course with these services, but this one adds a twist. Unlike almost every other dating site, it will not match people with members of the same sex," he wrote. "This upset the lesbian, claiming that this practice amounted to illegal anti-gay discrimination under state law.

While eHarmony’s practice is indefensible and likely bigoted, the lawsuit trivializes the serious phenomenon of anti-gay discrimination. I support antidiscrimination laws that prohibit certain types of group-based discrimination by government, including discrimination based on sexual orientation. I also support extending these principles to the private sphere on important matters like employment and housing, with some limitations and exemptions."

Many lawyers, however, are dubious that eHarmony’s questions and answers are based on research tailored to heterosexuals that may not fit well for homosexuals. The dynamics of gay and straight relationships are very similar if not identical: the same sorts of problems arise (e.g., financial, division of labor, differences over child rearing), the same traits are desired in mates (e.g., honesty), and so on. Given that eHarmony’s founder is a Christian evangelical with longstanding ties to James Dobson and the anti-gay group Focus on the Family, the real objection is probably that eHarmony does not want to facilitate what it regards as immoral and unbiblical relationships.

But regardless of whether it is viable under California law, is the suit against eHarmony an example of a frivolous use of an important legal protection?

Carpenter believes that, indeed, Carlson’s suit "allows some opponents of antidiscrimination law to point with some justification to excesses as evidence that the underlying idea is bad. It also allows anti-gay activists to belittle claims that gays are subject to serious and ongoing discrimination that should be remedied in law," he says. "The claim against eHarmony forgets the four most important words in public policy: up to a point. That point is passed when we make trivial and harmless discrimination, however dumb or prejudiced it is, a matter of legal concern."

Ray adds, that "the social and internet-social significance of it" points to niches, which "are increasingly important in online social networking. Sites like Lesbotronic.com and STDSingles.com create an online safe space for people who identify as lesbians or who have sexually transmitted diseases, respectively. However, smaller sites do not offer the same incredible variety of functions that a big site with many Web developers behind it has."

Match.com, for example, allows gays and lesbians to use the site (though Ray says it discriminates against bisexuals, because you can’t say that you are looking for both a man and a woman). And that doesn’t detract from the overall functioning of the site.

"There is really no good reason for eHarmony to exclude an entire population based on their sexuality," Ray adds, "allowing men to search for men and women to search for women wouldn’t require a whole new compatibility test on eHarmony. Many gay men and women are searching for the same things that straight people are searching for, and by excluding them, eHarmony is treating gays as entirely different kinds of people.

A lesbian might want to use eHarmony to have access to their personality profile, which is a pretty unique feature of the site. Because the site is full of straight women, she might not find many promising matches, but it[’s better to for people to have the option of exploring rather than being told by a site that their business isn’t welcome.

A former prosecutor and a full time soccer mom in Brooklyn, N.Y., has written that Carlson might have a case. "California has no-fault divorce, abolished its heart balm torts, and decriminalized adultery. Therefore, there is no legal reason why a service could not enable adulterers, either technical or actual. eHarmony’s preferences, and even its market research, must bow to California law," she explains

A female member of Singlesnet.com disagrees. "I like the fact they do not allow married men and married women to join the site," she writes. "It’s unfair to everyone in the situation--the cheating spouse, the cheating spouse’s family, and the potential date (if unaware).’

Most recently, eHarmony has said that its research to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages is a genuine hard work and not used to discriminate the LGBT community. Nothing precludes it from providing same-sex matching in the future, it is just not a service it offers now based upon the research it has conducted.

Let us fight harder

The story of Lisa Pond and her partner, Janice Langbehn and their children, posted on Rosie O'Donnell's blog today not only made me cry but also drove home the reason why gays and lesbians must continue to fight harder and stronger and lobby for national legal recognition of their partnerships and families.

We queers should be fighting very hard over this instead of suing others for our own personal benefits.

According to Venice Buhain on Rosie's blog, four months ago, Lacey resident Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Pond and their children Katie, David and Danielle, ages 10 to 13, were set for a relaxing cruise from Miami to the Bahamas.

But Pond, Langbehn’s partner for nearly 18 years, was stricken in Miami with a brain aneurysm and died. The family says the way they were treated by hospital staff compounded their shock and grief.

Langbehn, a social worker, said officials at the University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital did not recognize her or their jointly adopted children as part of Pond’s family. They were not allowed to be with her in the emergency room, and Langbehn’s authority to make decisions for Pond was not recognized.

Langbehn said that the pain from losing Pond is still fresh, but she spoke at the gay pride event Sunday because the issue of legal recognition of homosexual families was too important to let go.

“I want people to be able to hold their partner’s hand in their moment of death,” she said.

Even after a friend in Olympia faxed the legal documents that showed that Pond had authorized Langbehn to make medical decisions for her, Langbehn said she wasn’t invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition.

Langbehn says she still has not been given Pond’s medical records from the hospital nor her death certificate directly from the county or the state, which affected their children’s Social Security benefits.

New York’s state Assembly approves gay marriage bill

Courtesy of www.edgenewyork.com

by Marc Humbert
Associated Press
Wednesday Jun 20, 2007

Legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, sponsored by the openly gay brother of entertainer Rosie O’Donnell and supported by Gov. Eliot Spitzer, was approved 85-61 by the state Assembly Tuesday after an often emotional three-hour debate.

Despite the victory for supporters of the legislation, the bill is not expected to be acted on any time soon in the Republican-led state Senate.

In opening the Assembly debate, Manhattan Democrat Daniel O’Donnell told his colleagues that civil union, a process permitted in neighboring Vermont, wasn’t good enough.

"It will not provide equality for people like me," he said.

But Assemblyman Brian Kolb, taking note of "the nuns who taught me in grammar school" and his marriage in the Catholic Church, said he could not support the move.

"I do feel threatened. I do feel harmed," said the Canandaigua Republican. "It’s a direct challenge to me and how I was brought up."

Democrat Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jew from Brooklyn, warned the measure could lead to other proposals he found objectionable.

"Maybe we should include incest in the bill and sort of deal with the whole package at one time," said Hikind.

As the debate wound down, Teresa Sayward spoke emotionally of the struggles faced by her gay son as he grew up wanting "to be normal." She pleaded with fellow Assembly members to back the bill.

"Let’s search our hearts tonight and do the right thing," said the Glens Falls area Republican as her colleagues rose to applaud her.

As the voting ended, openly gay Staten Island Democrat Matthew Titone rose with his cell phone in his hand.

"I have my partner here on the phone and he just asked me to marry him," Titone, only elected in March, told the chamber.

"My answer, Madam Speaker, is yes," said Titone to a round of applause.

Titone was one of the 81 Democrats supporting the measure that was also backed by four Republicans - Sayward, Joel Miller of Dutchess County, Diedre Scozzafava of St. Lawrence County and Michael Spano of Westchester County.

Same-sex marriage is legal only in Massachusetts. The California Legislature approved a measure to allow gay marriage in 2005, but it was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"We not doing gay marriage by Thursday that’s for sure, or this year," Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno declared Tuesday morning as lawmakers wound down their annual legislative session, which is due to wrap up on Thursday.

New Yorkers are split over the gay marriage issues. A statewide poll out Tuesday from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found 35 percent of registered voters supported gay marriage while another 35 percent supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage. Twenty-two percent of voters said there should be no legal recognition of same-sex unions.

O’Donnell said that he had high hopes the Senate, and Bruno, would eventually come around.

"I’m hopeful he can be educated," the assemblyman said.

O’Donnell said he and his partner of 26 years, John Banta, director of special events for the American Ballet Theatre, were looking forward to the day when the measure might be signed into law.

"We would get married tomorrow, if we could," O’Donnell said.

As the Assembly prepared to debate the measure, New York’s Roman Catholic bishops issued a statement in opposition.

"The Catholic Church teaches that we treat our homosexual sisters and brothers with dignity and love ... However, marriage is not some political term of art that can be re-imagined or redefined according to the whims of popular culture," said a statement issued by the New York State Catholic Conference, the church’s lobbying arm.

Democrat Spitzer said that while the same-sex marriage legislation was still important to him, he wouldn’t be making any special effort to have the Senate act quickly on the measure.

"There are a number of issues that I think could potentially be resolved by Thursday and my focus right now is to see if we can get clarity and closure on those," Spitzer said.

There is no way to tie up the conclusion to the controversial lawsuit and cyberspace dispute into a pretty and pink little bow for eHarmony and the LGBT community. Should dating sites, straight and gay, be all for one and one for all?

It all started with a lesbian in San Francisco, Linda Carlson, who wanted to post a personal ad on eHarmony.com, a popular dating site, hoping to find love but only to get rejected recently has got bloggers, writers and the entire world weighing in with a broad range of opinion and questioning the core of America’s sense and sensibility.

We are clearly awed by how big and insane this cyberspace dispute has become and triggered the heart of the LGBT community to jump a triple somersault and divided the nation into two - one supporting it and the other thinking it is unfair and not right. A specific case of basic human rights versus basic business rights – just who is right?

eHarmony, a straight dating site, has long rattled the cage of the LGBT community by refusing to offer men seeking men and women seeking women options on its site. But to its over 12 million very satisfied members, many of whom have amazingly found true love on the site, Carlson has no case and the LGBT community has no rights to change its business policy other than to try to learn from its phenomenal success and adopt its winning strategies instead.

Similar cyber dispute story, different time and place. A Montreal man is also launching a human-rights complaint against Curves, a U.S.-based chain of women-only fitness clubs on the grounds he was denied membership.

Just like Carlson Vs eHarmony, the case comes after a city woman filed a sexual discrimination complaint because she was ejected from Le Stud, a men-only bar in the city's gay district.

Lost in this masquerade, lawyers are shaking their heads as human rights activists and members from both sides are getting very defensive.

All the reports seem to be siding and LGBT community so far and have been pointing their accusing fingers at the giant love machine saying that the lawsuit alleging discrimination, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Carlson, was based on sexual orientation, urging us to ask should dating sites, straight or gay, be all for one and one for all?

News from Montreal...

Priests ask to be sensitive to gay issues

Recently a newspaper in Montreal reported that nineteen Quebec priests denounced the Vatican's opposition to same-sex marriage and its refusal to allow gay men into the priesthood.

In an open letter published Sunday in La Presse, the priests expressed the strongest public dissent to date on the Roman Catholic church's stand on homosexuality.

In the letter published under the headline "Enough is enough," the priests charge that by considering homosexuality a "disorder," the church is contributing to homophobia.

There is no reason for the ban on homosexual men from entering the priesthood, is there?

Fuck off eHarmony, Hello chemistry.com!

Recently published in www.queerty.com

Online dating service Chemistry.com isn’t backing down from eHarmony.com’s threats. The brouhaha began last month after Barry Diller’s Chemistry.com started running television and print ads taking on the eHarmony’s gay ban.

Founded by Focus on The Family ally and James Dobson pal, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, eHarmony insists they don’t discriminate against gays because they disapprove, but because their patented psychological tests aren’t calibrated for the queer mind. Oh, and then there’s the whole no gay marriage thing - eHarmony boasts its marriage-oriented goals. Since gays can’t marry, well, eHarmony can’t invite them into the not-so-loving fold. Discrimination sure is convenient, huh?

It certainly is for Chemistry.com’s advertising agents, who concocted the aforementioned ads to prove their gay worth. And they’re certainly getting in the thick of the gays this and next weekend: the company’s booked two ads in New York fag rag, Next. Something tells us eHarmony hasn’t booked any space in the weekly’s pages. Perhaps they’re too busy fending off lesbian Linda Carlson’s discrimination lawsuit. Will eHarmony’s anti-gay tenacity take them down? We fucking hope so.

What's in for queers seeking asylum in the U.S.?

Big Disparities in Judging of Asylum Cases

It is easiest to be granted political asylum in the courts of San Francicso and New York and hardest in Atlanta.

Asylum seekers in the United States face broad disparities in the nation’s 54 immigration courts, with the outcome of cases influenced by things like the location of the court and the sex and professional background of judges, a new study has found.

The study, by three law professors, analyzes 140,000 decisions by immigration judges, including those cases from the 15 countries that have produced the most asylum seekers in recent years, among them China, Haiti, Colombia, Albania and Russia. The professors compared for the first time the results of immigration court cases over more than four years, finding vast differences in the handling of claims with generally comparable factual circumstances.

In one of the starker examples cited, Colombians had an 88 percent chance of winning asylum from one judge in the Miami immigration court and a 5 percent chance from another judge in the same court.

“It is very disturbing that these decisions can mean life or death, and they seem to a large extent to be the result of a clerk’s random assignment of a case to a particular judge,” said an author of the study, Philip G. Schrag, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

The study offers an unusually detailed window into the overburdened and often erratic immigration courts. Though the immigration bill now being considered does not propose major revisions in asylum laws, those courts serve as the judicial backbone of the immigration system that would take on an immense new workload if the bill becomes law.

The legislation would offer a road to legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, eliminate backlogs of legal immigration cases and step up enforcement, among other measures. Experts predict countless legal snags that would land before the immigration judges.

Officials at the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the Department of Justice, which oversees the immigration courts, declined to allow interviews about the study with David L. Neal, the chief immigration judge, citing a policy that immigration judges do not speak with the news media about their rulings.

The study found that someone who has fled China in fear of persecution and asks for asylum in immigration court in Orlando, Fla., has an excellent — 76 percent — chance of success, while the same refugee would have a 7 percent chance in Atlanta. Similarly, a Haitian seeking refuge from political violence is almost twice as likely to succeed in New York as in Miami.

Immigration lawyers acknowledge that the judges have difficult work, with huge dockets of cases that must be decided speedily on the basis of scant or subjective information. Often the asylum seeker is the only witness to crucial events.

But because immigration law is federal, the study’s authors argued, some uniformity could be expected in judges’ asylum rulings across the country, particularly in cases of people fleeing a country, like China or Colombia, where the conditions of political oppression or civil violence are publicly known.

“It’s such a high-volume system where the participants have so little time to test cases and make decisions, you become much more subject to the general viewpoint of the judge,” said Bo Cooper, a lawyer at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker who is a former general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That has created a risk, Mr. Cooper said, that “the system will not be good enough at providing refuge to those in need or identifying the claims of those who are not in need.”

The wide discretion exercised by immigration judges can be disheartening to lawyers and disastrous for immigrants facing threats to their lives if they are forced to return home, immigration lawyers said.

“Oftentimes, it’s just the luck of the draw,” said Cheryl Little, a lawyer and executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, a legal assistance group in Miami that represents many asylum seekers. “It’s heartbreaking,” Ms. Little said. “How do you explain to people asking for refuge that even in the United States of America we can’t assure them they will receive due process and justice?”

While immigration officers at Citizenship and Immigration Services, the federal agency, can grant asylum, the majority of asylum cases are decided by the immigration judges. Under the immigration system, refugees are foreigners coming from abroad who win residency in the United States for protection from religious persecution or political threats. Asylum is granted to foreigners who apply for refuge when they are already in the United States.

The study is based on data on judges’ decisions from January 2000 through August 2004. It has been posted on the Web site of the Social Science Research Network, www.ssrn.com, and published in November in the Stanford Law Review.

According to the study, great differences also prevail among judges sitting on the same court and hearing similar asylum cases. In the Miami immigration court, one judge granted 3 percent of the asylum cases, while another granted 75 percent.

One of the most significant factors determining whether a judge would be likely to approve asylum petitions was sex, the study found. Female immigration judges grant asylum at a 44 percent higher rate than their male colleagues.

The study by the three professors did not examine the judges’ political affiliation or the administration that appointed them.

The study suggests that the different willingness to grant asylum between male and female judges may in part have to do with their backgrounds. Of 78 female judges in the study, 27 percent had previously worked for organizations that defended the rights of immigrants or the poor, while only 8 percent of 169 male judges had similar experience. .

Though the study does not identify judges by name, profiles of immigration judges were drawn up separately by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group at Syracuse University. They show that the 24 judges who sit today in Miami (21 in court and 3 based in a detention facility) include some of the most likely and least likely to grant asylum.

According to the Clearinghouse profiles, one immigration judge currently on the Miami court, Mahlon F. Hanson, granted 3 percent of the asylum cases he heard. He was the second-toughest judge in the nation on asylum issues, the group found. Judge Denise N. Slavin, who hears cases at the Krome North detention center in Miami, granted 59 percent of the asylum claims she considered, placing her in the top 15 percent of judges approving such claims.

Lawyers said the variations may in part have to do with the cases particular courts are handling. Miami immigration courts see a large number of asylum claims from Haiti, and the judges may have differing outlooks and disagree about the possibilities for Haitians to face persecution in their country.

The variations between courts and among judges were particularly troubling, the authors of the study argued, because of the impact of procedural changes introduced by the Bush administration in 2002 at the Board of Immigration Appeals, the appellate body that reviews decisions by the immigration court judges.

Those changes led to a “sudden and lasting decline” in appeals that were favorable to asylum seekers, the study found, raising doubts as to whether the board was providing fair appeals.

In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft made streamlined the work of the appeals board, reducing the number of board members to 11 from 23 and encouraging more decisions by single members and without explanation.

The study looked at 76,000 decisions by the appeals board from 1998 through 2005. Asylum applicants who were represented by lawyers received favorable appeals decisions from the board in 43 percent of cases in 2001, the year before the changes took effect. By 2005, asylum seekers with lawyers won their appeals in 13 percent of cases.

“The judges handle a very large caseload, they’re human, they are not going to catch every detail,” said Mary Meg McCarthy, director of the National Immigrant Justice Center, a legal assistance group in Chicago. “But once they streamlined the Board of Immigration Appeals,” Ms. McCarthy said, “there was a failure of the board to review those cases, to check on what the immigration judge had found. When that failed, we had a real crisis in the system.”

As a result of the trends at the appeals board, there has been a new surge of asylum appeals to the federal circuit courts, in practice the last resort for immigration cases. Over all, the number of people winning asylum in the United States has declined, dropping by about 12 percent from 28,684 in 2003 to 25,257 in 2005, the last year when complete figures are available.

The immigration courts have been in the spotlight after Justice Department officials said last week that the investigation of Monica M. Goodling, a former aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, has been expanded to include her role in helping to appoint immigration judges.

Ms. Goodling testified recently that she had “crossed the line” in applying political considerations to candidates for nonpartisan legal jobs. Immigration judges are appointed by the attorney general, and 49 of 226 current judges were appointed during the tenure of Mr. Gonzales.

Where's our The Uniting American Families Act?

One of the fundamental principles of U.S. immigration law and policy is the notion of family unification, which allows citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes. Unfortunately, under current federal law, same-sex couples committed to spending their lives together are not recognized as "families."

Every year, thousands of same-sex couples are separated or live in constant fear of being stopped by officials who demand to see documentation and threaten detention. In some cases, same-sex partners face prosecution by the Immigration and Naturalization Service - including hefty fines and deportations. U.S. citizens are sometimes left with no other choice but to immigrate with their partners to a country with more fair-minded immigration laws.

The Uniting American Families Act would apply the same standards to same-sex couples that the United States applies to opposite-sex couples where one member is seeking to bring a foreign partner into the country. As with current immigration laws for married couples, the UAFA would impose harsh penalties for fraud, including up to five years in prison and as much as $250,000 in fines. In addition, if the partnership is dissolved in less than two years, the legal immigrant status of the partner would be revoked.

The Uniting American Families Act is not special treatment. It's fair treatment.

Your support of this legislation is vital if America's immigration policies are going to reflect our fundamental commitment to family values and equality for all.

What do you think?

********************************************

And what was that all about?

Ben Affleck talked to Chris Mathew about politics last night on Hardball! Is this the beginning of the end of America? For 45 minutes we nearly died - watching them talking politics. Too light weight for our taste. Do you think that the news find that newsy? No. What is newsy? Paris Hilton - the super rich kid is back in jail for breaking laws. That's a good news.

I think Chris Mathew was sucking up to Affleck to get tickets to the best Hollywood parties.

Statement from Hillary Clinton On Gay & Lesbian Pride Month

by Hillary Clinton
Monday Jun 4, 2007

[courtesy of www.edgenewyork.com]

"As we celebrate Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, I want to commend the LGBT community on a historic year that brought our country closer to equality and closer to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Just a year ago, I worked with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans. In fact, since June 2006, New Jersey and New Hampshire became the third and fourth states to adopt civil unions and Washington and Iowa were added to the list of states that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. A similar bill in Colorado is expected to be signed into law soon. And in Congress, we are finally on the verge of passing the Matthew Shepherd Act, which would expand hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. What a difference a year makes.

"The start of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month is a great time to celebrate these recent victories but also to reflect on all the work that still needs to be done. Unfortunately, while this is the first time in years that hate crimes legislation has a strong chance of passing both houses of Congress, President Bush has already signaled that he would veto this landmark bill. The truth is we will see little progress for the LGBT community at the national level until we have a new Democratic president. For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It’s been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.

"I’m running for president to replace the divisive leadership of the past six years - leadership that views no issue and no family above the reach of politics. America deserves a president who appeals to the best in each of us, not the worst; a president who values and respects all Americans, gay and straight; a president who treats all Americans equally no matter who they are or who they love.

"I’m proud of my record standing up for the LGBT community during my years as First Lady and as a U.S. Senator. But when I take office in January 2009, we’ll finally be able to define success by more than the bigotry we stopped and the bad decisions we prevented. America will finally have a president who moves this country forward. When I am president, we will work together to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits and that nothing stands in the way of loving couples who want to adopt children in need. We’re going to finally expand our federal hate crimes legislation and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is just plain wrong that in the year 2007, people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of who they love. And finally, we will put an end to the failed policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Courage, honor, patriotism and sacrifice - the traits that define our men and women in uniform - have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"I am honored to have the support of so many people in the LGBT community and look forward to working with the community closely throughout the campaign. Together, we can continue the journey America has been on from the very beginning - to form a more perfect union and realize the goals and values we believe in. That’s the promise of America - and that’s why I’m running for president."

Tamyra & Fantasia

A friend asked me to see RENT again. Why? I've seen it three times since 2001. He said, "see it again - Tamyra Gray is playing Mimi!" And she's the best Mimi ever!"
Okay! Let's go see RENT again. I love Tamyra Gray.

And, another friend begged me to see the amazing Fantasia - the lovable, huggable and talented people's choice, an Idol champ singing in The Color Purple - a play about love. She said in a lifetime of theatre-going, she has never seen or heard such an ovation as what greeted Fantasia (not even Effie White in DreamGirls) at the curtain call of The Color Purple. Fantasia plays Celie and she provides a soul stirring, transformatively beating heart to show. "Her pipes are amazing by the time she sings 'I am Here and I am Beautiful'" People who've seen it told me that they were going nuts, watching her. Well then, let's go see Fantasia in The Color Purple.

eHarmony Vs Lesbians

If eHarmony.com lost to Linda Carlson, what will other sites like www.over40plus.com, www.perfectmatch.com and www.great-expectations.com do?
Do they have to provide for the LGBT community also? How about the men-only sites like manhunt, okCupid, bigmuscles, normalguys, hot or not, dlist, adam4adam and the others with men-only policy? Will we queers want women to join our favorite sites?

Below are my questions for you charming queers...

1) Do you think the lawsuit by Linda Carlson ultimately has any merit or chance of success?

2) Do you think lawsuits like Carlson's ultimately help or hurt the long-term goals of equal rights?

3) Do you think eHarmony.com must have Men Seeking Men and Women Seeking Women in its site?

4) How about the gay-only dating sites? Do they need to offer straight people the same perks?

5) Why do you think more and more lesbians want to join eHarmony.com knowing too well that the match-making site is strictly for straight only?

News From The Advocate

Surgeon general nominee appears to be biased against gays

President Bush's nominee to become the next surgeon general of the United States has a questionable record on gay issues. Dr. James Holsinger Jr. of the University of Kentucky College of Public Health was nominated on May 24.

Holsinger's writings and activities betray a decidedly antigay bias. In a paper titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” for example, Holsinger claimed that his understanding of biology and anatomy prevented him from believing that gays and lesbians deserved equality.

Holsinger, along with his wife, also founded the Hope Springs Community Church, a well-known “ex-gay” ministry where, according to the church's pastor, gays and lesbians undergo conversion therapy to rid themselves of their homosexuality. Such therapy has been denounced by nearly every major medical organization in the country, including the American Psychological Association.

“Dr. Holsinger has a record that is unworthy of America's doctor,” Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement, referring informally to the post of surgeon general. “His writings suggest a scientific view rooted in antigay beliefs that are incompatible with the job of serving the medical health of all Americans. It is essential that America's top doctor value sound science over antigay ideology.”

Holsinger's nomination must be approved by the U.S. Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, whose Democratic members include presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois, and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. (The Advocate)

From Lambda Legal

Lambda Legal Filed a Lawsuit on Behalf of Lesbian Homeowners in Federal Court Against Self-Described 'America's #1 Home Loan Lender'

'If these two women had been able to marry in New York, this never would have happened.'

Last month, Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York federal court on behalf of a same-sex couple after the self described "America's #1 home loan lender" refused to add one partner to the other's existing mortgage and then threatened to foreclose on their home.

"Everyone from kids to creditors knows what it means when two people say they are married," said David S. Buckel, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and attorney on the case. "If these two women had been able to marry in New York, this never would have happened. Instead, they were told they had 30 days to come up with almost $80,000 or else they were going to lose their home."

Adola DeWolf, 49, a teacher for juveniles in the justice system and Laura Watts 42, a college administrator, have been in a committed relationship since 2004. When they decided to move in together in 2005, Watts sold her house and moved into DeWolf's home outside of Rochester, NY.

In an attempt to make sure both partners were protected in case of death, and to share the responsibility for the mortgage, they contacted DeWolf's mortgage company, Countrywide, to add Watts as a party responsible for the monthly payments. Countrywide provided instructions to the couple, including a requirement that Watts be added to the deed.

After the couple followed the instructions to change the mortgage, Countrywide responded by stating that the couple had breached their agreement with the lender by changing the deed and stated that the lender did not recognize domestic partners as family. Countrywide then told the couple that they would foreclose on the house if the $80,000 balance on the mortgage were not paid in 30 days.

"We fell in love and made a commitment for life. The next step was to share the responsibility for home ownership, but Countrywide said our relationship didn't count and then threatened to take away our home," said Laura Watts.

"We spent weeks constantly scrambling to make sure that we didn't lose our home, all the time knowing that if we'd been married, it would have been so simple," said Adola DeWolf.

One of the claims in this case is under the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which requires that creditors not discriminate against applicants based on marital status.

This week Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell officially introduced Governor Spitzer's bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry.

The case is called DeWolf and Watts v. Countrywide.

David S. Buckel, Director of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project is attorney on the case along with cooperating attorneys Beau W. Buffier, James L. Garrity Jr. and David M. Sollors of Shearman & Sterling LLP.

###

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The antiwar Democrats are crying betrayal

And justifiably so.

For a Democratic Congress is now voting to fully fund the war in Iraq, as demanded by President Bush, and without any timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Bush got his $100 billion, then magnanimously agreed to let Democrats keep the $20 billion in pork they stuffed into the bill -- to soothe the pain of their sellout of the party base.

Remarkable. If the Republican rout of 2006 said anything, it was that America had lost faith in the Bush-Rumsfeld conduct of the war and wanted Democrats to lead the country out.

Yet, today, there are more U.S. troops in Iraq than when the Democrats won. More are on the way. And with the surge and retention of troops in Iraq beyond normal tours, there should be a record number of U.S. troops in country by year's end.

Why did the Democrats capitulate?

Because they lack the courage of their convictions. Because they fear the consequences if they put their antiwar beliefs into practice. Because they are afraid if they defund the war and force President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops, the calamity he predicts will come to pass and they will be held accountable for losing Iraq and the strategic disaster that might well ensue.

Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.

Yet, not only does the situation in Iraq appear increasingly grim, with rising U.S. and Iraqi casualties, other shoes are about to drop that will reverberate throughout the region.

With Democratic contenders reciting the mantra, "All options are on the table," and Iran defying U.N. sanctions, pursuing nuclear enrichment and detaining U.S. citizens, Bush has a blank check to launch a third war.

Lebanon is ablaze. Gaza is ablaze. The Taliban have a privileged sanctuary. The NATO allies grow weary.

In Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth -- one bullet away from an Islamic republic with atom bombs -- our erstwhile ally, President Musharraf, is caught in a political crisis over his ouster of the chief justice.

With such volatility in this crucial region of the world, with such uncertainty, it is easy to see why Democrats prefer to be the "dummy" at the bridge table and let Bush play the hand.

And if the war is going badly in 2008, they know that the American people, in repudiating the party of Bush and Cheney, have no other choice than the party of Hillary and Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That is why congressional Democrats are surely saying privately of the angry antiwar left what has often been said by the Beltway Republican elite of the right: "Don't worry about them. They have nowhere else to go.

And that is why the antiwar left was thrown under the bus. What do you homos think about that?

From Margaret Cho

Our Humanity

Whenever anything really bad happens around Korean people, that is when I would like to hide, go to Hawaii and eat spam sushi until it blows over. I don’t want to comment on it because I don't want to escalate the situation and I don't want to implicate myself in it.

I don't want to 'come out' as Asian because therein lies a tremendous responsibility that I never volunteered for, that I don't have any real control over, and that is as mysterious to me as it is to someone who isn't Asian.

So here is the whole terrible mess of the shootings at Virginia Tech. I look at the shooter's expressionless face on the news and he looks so familiar, like he could be in my family. Just another one of us. But how can he be us when what he has done is so terrible?

Here is where I can really envy white people because when white people do something that is inexplicably awful, so brutally and horribly wrong, nobody says – “do you think it is because he is white?” There are no headlines calling him the “White shooter." There is no mention of race because there is no thought in anyone's mind that his race had anything to do with his crime.

So much attention is focused on the Asian-ness of the shooter, how the Korean community is reacting to it, South Korea's careful condolences and cautiously expressed fear that it will somehow impact the South Korean population at large.

What is lost here is the grief. What is lost is the great, looming sadness that we should all feel over this. We lose our humanity to racism, time and time again.

I extend my deepest sympathies to all those who lost their loved ones, their children, their friends and family, in this unimaginable tragedy. I send them all the love I have in me, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

We love you Rosie O'Donnell

This world is not meant for one as "beautiful" as you my dear Rosie O'Donnell.

To hell with Elizabeth "cowardly" Hassle...(I don't even know how to spell her name and why on earth did someone employed her to host such an important talkshow without bringing her own uniqueness and power - she has to piggy ride on Rosie's back to get noticed!)

Oh well, we queers do love you so much Rosie. And we don't watch "The View" much since you've been gone. Why would we? You are not there anymore to please our brains and tickle our senses with your class act point of view. We want to sink our teeth in something deep and real, and indepth. We want to feel as if we belonged to your club. We want substance. There is no more substance in The View. Both a powerhouse talkshow pro and an advocate of astonishing depth and tenderness (tho Donald trump deserved it!) When Rosie took over from Star Jones The View feels like a completely differetn show - The Rosie O'Donnell Show. I was amazed.

The View should go. There's nothing there anymore. Watch Tyra Banks!

For Rosie what is real is synonymous with the truth and the truth is as precious a commodity as it is rare, at least in the realm of show business. On her heavily trafficked website, she often writes about things like feeding geese, befriending squirrels, baby birds hatching in a corner of her roof, her wife’s conservative family, her children’s small triumphs and the ordinary people she encounters’ various struggles to survive. She puts her money where her mouth is and consistently gives it away, threatening to fire her financial advisors should she ever wind up on a Richest Celeb list.

But she’s also fully recognized and taken advantage of the national audience she regained by joining The View this year, speaking out and devoting whole hours to issues like depression, autism, and the devastating illnesses now ravaging the 9/11 first responders.

Then there is The War. Rosie has relentlessly, with unmistakable rage and palpable grief refused, despite Barbara Walter’s awkward discomfort with it, to stop speaking out about this criminal administration and the Iraq War it made up, dressed up, and sold to our nation. “WAKE UP, AMERICA!” Rosie has, for years now, commanded from within the sometimes-confusing typographical trenches of her blog.

Despite the fact that the media’s manipulations drove her from the very show she reinvented, Rosie’s fights with Elisabeth Hasselbeck did nothing if they did not wake us up. They were riveting in their rawness and to the extent one side of them ever seemed prepped, Rosie made no attempt to hide her disgust with such executively borne machinations.

On what O’Donnell has since called Nuclear Wednesday, Elizabeth made an analogy about a deadline for pulling out of the war and a timed football pass. Nothing could have articulated more clearly what Rosie seemed to find so anathema about this woman’s politics and ultimately her personal comportment.

While Elisabeth appeared to almost relish the supposed gamesmanship of their political throw downs — going off to do sound bytes for the nightly “entertainment” show after Wednesday’s meltdown and assuring the public she wasn’t “mad” and that they would most definitely remain friends, they wore Rosie O’Donnell so far down you could literally see it in her eyes. They grew distant long before that eventual (and perhaps inevitable) dénouement.

Rosie said it was the split screen that was the final nail in her View coffin. It makes sense. The split screen implied that these feelings and ideas Rosie holds so dear and was trying, so very hard it seemed, to communicate to Elisabeth (but also to anyone who had ever twisted her words to serve their personal agenda) about truth and justice and loyalty and humanity could be turned into an empty gesture of celluloid commercialism: Selling Rosie as the worst and most dishonest caricature of herself, one side of a two dimensional screen. Kind of like what the government has done to our nation. Every day veracity is under siege in America as the current administration tries to warp what’s actually happening while the vast majority of our mainstream media remains complicit with their systematic airbrushing of the bloody facts.

We who compulsively tuned into the video blog she began a few weeks ago with her quirky long time producer-cum-mustache artist and giant-turkey-wing-eating hair stylist saw that Rosie was clearly far more at ease back stage, behind closed doors with a face naked of all concealers, singing along to Amy Winehouse or Tina Turner and answering some of the thousands of questions she gets daily than she ever would be out on that carefully orchestrated studio set.

I am confident, however, that Rosie will return. Not to The View, but to the unmatched power that is television. She’ll don the necessary war paint and head out under the hot white lights and blinking audience signs. She may act more or less surprised that people still love her, despite and because of her rage. The fact is this: A steadfast quest to reveal what is really real requires Rosie stay out here, on the front lines of truth.

courtesy of the huffington post and http://www/rosie.com/blog

How could they do this to us?

How historically pathetic can our war be?

According to a news report recently, we have been betrayed by the Entire Government. The entire government has failed us on Iraq.

For the president, and the majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of EITHER party - there is only blame for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history - whether executive or legislative, state or national - have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution - half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

1) The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president - if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history - who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money";

2) The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;

3) The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

4) The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

But how horrifying it is...to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent American children/soldiers in harms way, are bled white.