The Daily News March 28, 2005/ Dear Harriette:
(Found this a couple days ago..What do you think of the situation and the response ?)
Dear Harriette,
I am a male who lives as a female. Recently, a close friend of mine, Christina, asked if I would participate in her wedding as a bridesmaid. I'm thrilled and honoured but also a bit concerned Although almost everyone in our circle of friends knows my status, I'm a bit worried how her friends and family, who don't know me, will react. She mentioned to her mother that she would like me as a bridesmaid, and her mother expressed some tripadation and concern for the families of the bride and groom, some of whom will be bringing children. I have only recently started living as a woman, and feel that I'm quite passable, but I would rather avoid any trouble. Christina insists that she wants me there as a bridesmaid. What should I do?
Signed,
Michelle of NYC.
From Harriette Cole / The Daily News
Dear Michelle,
As welcoming and inclusive as Christina is being with you she doesn't seem to be thinking fully about the big picture. Yes, some family members and friends probaly will be uncomfortable about your role. More important though, by putting you " on display" she may be drawing more attention to you than you feel comfortable having on her wedding day. You should not become the center of attention by default. Rather than simply being able to support your friend on her day of great joy you may find yourself having to defend yourself before people who are judgemental about your role. Trust your instincts. Thank Christina for the invitation and ask her if you can serve in a less visable role during the wedding where you don't have to be front and center.
Signed,
Harriette Cole
If you feel moved ,drop Harriette a line or two and let her know how you feel.
askharriette@harriettecole.com
Weddings can be awfully square, and it might just end up with Michelle being the butt of jokes and getting angry.
The advice was kind of stupid. The question is also whether the other bridesmaids are going to accept her. If those other chicks are a bunch of boring quares she will not have any fun and should opt out. My trans friends are always falling over bored trying to educate the masses. If she isn't up to it, she should go with a hunky date, dressed to the nines, in a dress that I am sure will be nicer than some bridesmaid crap.
S'tan Landers
The advice was kind of stupid. The question is also whether the other bridesmaids are going to accept her. If those other chicks are a bunch of boring quares she will not have any fun and should opt out. My trans friends are always falling over bored trying to educate the masses. If she isn't up to it, she should go with a hunky date, dressed to the nines, in a dress that I am sure will be nicer than some bridesmaid crap.
S'tan Landers
I agree with S'tan mostly. If the bride asked for the person's participation I don't see anything amiss. I think if some straight person has a problem with it then that is really their problem and I personally wouldn't get too caught up in that drama since that is what anyone having a problem would want, to suck the trans person in to some soap opera over the whole thing. It is way past time straight people got used to these situations. For me the whole point is that trans people should no longer be getting considered to be freaks by the straight world. So no reason not to go and be just another happy participant. Really the only thing to pay attention to is what the bride's real motive is for asking. If it is really a genuine desire, really there is nothing off about participating as a bride's maid if all the scrutiny is of no matter to the maid. The whole event may even turn out to be more memorable for it.
But then, I used to go to parties and such functions simply to see how many people I could unsettle. It is just that doing that turns out to be soooo easy.
But then, I used to go to parties and such functions simply to see how many people I could unsettle. It is just that doing that turns out to be soooo easy.
this is racism. treating trans gender/sexual people like they are less than human is the point.
how did european christian americans convince america to go along with slavery? how did euro christian america get americans to go along with segregating out from society all african/asian/& american indians too? how did americans get america to go long with owning people legally ever in america? (they worked hard at it!)
how do christian americans keep gay/lesbian/transgender/transexual people down now? how do 'they' still keep these uppity 'alternative' types in their place? isn't that the real question? how to make it uncivilized, anti-social, and anti-family to be gender different anything and in public?
why did we allow white christians to say they couldn't possibly be good christians unless people of color were not allowed to go to the movies/hospital/airports/bathroom with european christians in america and had to sit in the balcony or back of the bus? how did america let white christians tell us people of color were meant to be non-human slaves? isn't this the same game being played now on the rest of us?
so with this white wedding, we are all advised to hide the cross dresser? hide the transgender? hide those transexuals? make those gays hide in the basement when company comes? who is letting this happen?
merlin bets more than one 'straight' boy at the wedding will chat the crossdresser up, dispite the color of the bridesmaid dress he is wearing.
how did european christian americans convince america to go along with slavery? how did euro christian america get americans to go along with segregating out from society all african/asian/& american indians too? how did americans get america to go long with owning people legally ever in america? (they worked hard at it!)
how do christian americans keep gay/lesbian/transgender/transexual people down now? how do 'they' still keep these uppity 'alternative' types in their place? isn't that the real question? how to make it uncivilized, anti-social, and anti-family to be gender different anything and in public?
why did we allow white christians to say they couldn't possibly be good christians unless people of color were not allowed to go to the movies/hospital/airports/bathroom with european christians in america and had to sit in the balcony or back of the bus? how did america let white christians tell us people of color were meant to be non-human slaves? isn't this the same game being played now on the rest of us?
so with this white wedding, we are all advised to hide the cross dresser? hide the transgender? hide those transexuals? make those gays hide in the basement when company comes? who is letting this happen?
merlin bets more than one 'straight' boy at the wedding will chat the crossdresser up, dispite the color of the bridesmaid dress he is wearing.
I am sure you are right about that Merlin.
And that is one of the things any fear of the trans person is based on. Simply that quite a few people will really not find anything at all offensive about a bridesmaid that didn't start life womyn-identified, that plenty of wedding attendees will welcome such a person and be glad they are there. The fearful are scared of any such opportunity where what they see as a threat to their oppressive social order could be accepted without any qualms at all.
And that is one of the things any fear of the trans person is based on. Simply that quite a few people will really not find anything at all offensive about a bridesmaid that didn't start life womyn-identified, that plenty of wedding attendees will welcome such a person and be glad they are there. The fearful are scared of any such opportunity where what they see as a threat to their oppressive social order could be accepted without any qualms at all.
we are subscribing male attributes to men in dresses, not as a woman might be described. like crossdressers are as aggressive as gay men? as men in general, lol.
all men are aggressive and all men know other men can be as strong as they are whether in a dress or not. that is what fightens people, there their big male bull may not be as strong as a big male bull crossdresser?
merlin has met more than one aggressive submissive male and female. and that is what changes the natural order? for the image of a woman to be weak and not be a muscle guy underneath the dress?
all men are aggressive and all men know other men can be as strong as they are whether in a dress or not. that is what fightens people, there their big male bull may not be as strong as a big male bull crossdresser?
merlin has met more than one aggressive submissive male and female. and that is what changes the natural order? for the image of a woman to be weak and not be a muscle guy underneath the dress?
The particular example this string started out with from the newspaper advice column that Bobby posted is specifically a "male who lives as a female". But I think you hit on the core of the matter Merlin -social confusion is the prime source of the question about being 'integrated' into the dominant order.
thank you seven for explaining what merlin wrote, could not for the life of me figure it out. lol.
Well, bridesmaid's gowns aside, it appears tha NYC will now be recognizing out of state gay marriages...
"New York City To Recognize Gay Marriages
by Doug Windsor
Posted: April 7, 2005 5:01 pm ET
New York City will recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions - but only if they were performed outside the state in areas where they are already legal.
The announcement was made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's special counsel, Anthony W. Crowell and comes two months after the mayor appealed a ruling by a New York City judge that denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples violated the state constitution.
While the appeal works its way through New York's appeal process, the Mayor's decision to recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who went out of state to marry or form civil unions was welcomed by LGBT civil rights activists.
"We applaud Mayor Bloomberg for taking a step in the right direction and working to ensure that same-sex couples who live in New York City and have been married in Canada, Massachusetts and other places are now as legally married as a couple who got a license at City Hall," said Allan Van Capelle, the executive director of Pride Agenda.
New York City becomes the sixth locality in New York State to pro-actively affirm that it recognizes marriages of same-sex couples, according them the same rights as all other marriages within their local jurisdictions. Other localities are Buffalo, Rochester, Brighton, Ithaca and Nyack. The announcements follow Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's opinion that marriages and civil unions of same-sex couples performed outside the state should be treated as valid marriages in New York State.
"The Mayor's pro-active announcement on same-sex marriage means that 8,591,000 of New York State's 18,976,457 people, or more than 45% of the state's population, live in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is a legal fact," said Van Capelle. "Given that Massachusetts has a population of only 6,349,000 people, there are now more New Yorkers living in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been declared legal than there are people in all of Massachusetts."
But, it may be a year or more before gay and lesbian New Yorkers find out if they will be allowed to marry in their own state.
A bid to expedite Bloomberg's appeal, and one in Ithaca where a judge ruled against same-sex marriage, was rejected by the state's highest court last month. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the cases must work their way through the lower court appeals process first.
In addition, those marriages performed in New Paltz are not recognized by the state.
But, while the issue of same-sex marriage drags on in the courts a poll released Wednesday shows that most people in New York State support marriage for same-sex couples.
The Global Strategy Group survey found that 51% of New Yorkers support marriage for same-sex couples while 42% do not. A similar Global Strategy Group poll conducted for the Pride Agenda last year in March 2004 found 47% in support of marriage and 46% opposed."
"New York City To Recognize Gay Marriages
by Doug Windsor
Posted: April 7, 2005 5:01 pm ET
New York City will recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions - but only if they were performed outside the state in areas where they are already legal.
The announcement was made by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's special counsel, Anthony W. Crowell and comes two months after the mayor appealed a ruling by a New York City judge that denying marriage to gay and lesbian couples violated the state constitution.
While the appeal works its way through New York's appeal process, the Mayor's decision to recognize the marriages of New Yorkers who went out of state to marry or form civil unions was welcomed by LGBT civil rights activists.
"We applaud Mayor Bloomberg for taking a step in the right direction and working to ensure that same-sex couples who live in New York City and have been married in Canada, Massachusetts and other places are now as legally married as a couple who got a license at City Hall," said Allan Van Capelle, the executive director of Pride Agenda.
New York City becomes the sixth locality in New York State to pro-actively affirm that it recognizes marriages of same-sex couples, according them the same rights as all other marriages within their local jurisdictions. Other localities are Buffalo, Rochester, Brighton, Ithaca and Nyack. The announcements follow Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's opinion that marriages and civil unions of same-sex couples performed outside the state should be treated as valid marriages in New York State.
"The Mayor's pro-active announcement on same-sex marriage means that 8,591,000 of New York State's 18,976,457 people, or more than 45% of the state's population, live in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is a legal fact," said Van Capelle. "Given that Massachusetts has a population of only 6,349,000 people, there are now more New Yorkers living in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been declared legal than there are people in all of Massachusetts."
But, it may be a year or more before gay and lesbian New Yorkers find out if they will be allowed to marry in their own state.
A bid to expedite Bloomberg's appeal, and one in Ithaca where a judge ruled against same-sex marriage, was rejected by the state's highest court last month. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that the cases must work their way through the lower court appeals process first.
In addition, those marriages performed in New Paltz are not recognized by the state.
But, while the issue of same-sex marriage drags on in the courts a poll released Wednesday shows that most people in New York State support marriage for same-sex couples.
The Global Strategy Group survey found that 51% of New Yorkers support marriage for same-sex couples while 42% do not. A similar Global Strategy Group poll conducted for the Pride Agenda last year in March 2004 found 47% in support of marriage and 46% opposed."
HOPE IN NEBRASKA?
May 13, 2005
Judge Voids Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Nebraska
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LINCOLN, Neb., May 12 (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the measure interfered not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a variety of other living arrangements.
The amendment to the state's Constitution, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.
The Nebraska ruling is the first in which a federal court has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, and conservatives in the United States Senate pointed to it as evidence of the need for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"When we debated the merits of a federal marriage amendment on the Senate floor, opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened, that no judge had ever ruled against state marriage laws," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. He added, "After today's ruling, they can no longer make that claim."
The drive for a constitutional amendment stalled out after the last election as Senate leaders said they would await court rulings on the many state constitutional amendments that already ban same-sex marriage.
The judge in the Nebraska case, Joseph F. Bataillon of Federal District Court, said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gay men and lesbians "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Judge Bataillon said the ban went "far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman." He said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."
Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban went further, prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gay men and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were banned from sharing benefits with their partners.
Nebraska has no state law against same-sex marriage, but Attorney General Jon Bruning said it was not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now. Mr. Bruning said he would appeal the ruling.
The challenge to the marriage law was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the Lesbian and Gay Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
A lawyer for Lambda Legal, David Buckel, has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriages since last May; Vermont has offered civil unions since 2000. The actions came after courts ruled that gay couples were being discriminated against.
Those court decisions spurred the move last year for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a move President Bush has said he supports. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a May 19 hearing on the need for such an amendment.
May 13, 2005
Judge Voids Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Nebraska
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LINCOLN, Neb., May 12 (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the measure interfered not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a variety of other living arrangements.
The amendment to the state's Constitution, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.
The Nebraska ruling is the first in which a federal court has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, and conservatives in the United States Senate pointed to it as evidence of the need for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"When we debated the merits of a federal marriage amendment on the Senate floor, opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened, that no judge had ever ruled against state marriage laws," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. He added, "After today's ruling, they can no longer make that claim."
The drive for a constitutional amendment stalled out after the last election as Senate leaders said they would await court rulings on the many state constitutional amendments that already ban same-sex marriage.
The judge in the Nebraska case, Joseph F. Bataillon of Federal District Court, said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gay men and lesbians "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Judge Bataillon said the ban went "far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman." He said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."
Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban went further, prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gay men and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were banned from sharing benefits with their partners.
Nebraska has no state law against same-sex marriage, but Attorney General Jon Bruning said it was not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now. Mr. Bruning said he would appeal the ruling.
The challenge to the marriage law was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the Lesbian and Gay Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
A lawyer for Lambda Legal, David Buckel, has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriages since last May; Vermont has offered civil unions since 2000. The actions came after courts ruled that gay couples were being discriminated against.
Those court decisions spurred the move last year for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a move President Bush has said he supports. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a May 19 hearing on the need for such an amendment.
Here's some good news amidst all of the bad lately:
Calif. lawmakers pass gay marriage bill
Action is first by a U.S. legislative body; bill goes to Schwarzenegger's desk
Shelly Bailes, left, and her partner of 31 years, Ellen Pontac, celebrate after the California Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill on Tuesday.
Updated: 7:17 a.m. ET Sept. 7, 2005
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.
The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.
"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week.
Calif. lawmakers pass gay marriage bill
Action is first by a U.S. legislative body; bill goes to Schwarzenegger's desk
Shelly Bailes, left, and her partner of 31 years, Ellen Pontac, celebrate after the California Assembly passed a same-sex marriage bill on Tuesday.
Updated: 7:17 a.m. ET Sept. 7, 2005
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.
The legislation could be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has expressed an acceptance of gay marriages but said it's an issue that should be decided by voters or the courts.
"He will uphold whatever the court decides," spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Tuesday after the state Assembly approved the same-sex marriage measure, 41-35. The Senate had approved it last week.
First New Jersey and now... Scotland?
I thought it was time again to dust off this venerable topic...
From todays Sunday Times- Scotland:
"This weekend the Kirk "” one of the last bastions of Presbyterian rectitude "” signalled that it is ready to bless gay weddings for the first time. The admission may be enough to make John Knox... the father of the Protestant reformation in Scotland, spin in his grave, but it is an unmistakable sign of changing times.
Sheilagh Kesting, who takes over as the new moderator of the Church of Scotland's general assembly next May, says "the time is right" to allow Kirk ministers to conduct services marking civil partnerships... "
That news and other world news such as the recent Anglican New Zealand controversy makes me realize that there is a revolution happening-- it's just that the US has fallen so far behind the rest of the Western World.
I thought it was time again to dust off this venerable topic...
From todays Sunday Times- Scotland:
"This weekend the Kirk "” one of the last bastions of Presbyterian rectitude "” signalled that it is ready to bless gay weddings for the first time. The admission may be enough to make John Knox... the father of the Protestant reformation in Scotland, spin in his grave, but it is an unmistakable sign of changing times.
Sheilagh Kesting, who takes over as the new moderator of the Church of Scotland's general assembly next May, says "the time is right" to allow Kirk ministers to conduct services marking civil partnerships... "
That news and other world news such as the recent Anglican New Zealand controversy makes me realize that there is a revolution happening-- it's just that the US has fallen so far behind the rest of the Western World.
The next stage of the global revolution may happen right here in our own state. Eliot Spitzer said months ago that he supports gay marriage and would work to enable legislation if elected. Shockingly it has not hurt his standing in the polls AT ALL and his victory on Tuesday is a forgone conclusion. Few government officials have spoken out against his gay marriage stance, and if Spitzer stays true to his word then Bloomberg will not be able to make excuses for opposing gay marriage like he did here at the local level. We'll see what happens.
"SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) ...This Valentine's Day gay and lesbian couples in Northern California's Yolo County won't go home with a marriage license, but they won't walk away empty handed either. County Clerk Freddy Oakley will be handing out what she calls "certificates of inequality," which claim California law against gay marriage is wrong.
The controversial move is drawing attention and criticism, but Oakley is standing firm in her decision. "It's not a stunt. It comes from the heart. If they could say no to these folks and not feel bad about it, I would be concerned for their moral health," she said. "
The controversial move is drawing attention and criticism, but Oakley is standing firm in her decision. "It's not a stunt. It comes from the heart. If they could say no to these folks and not feel bad about it, I would be concerned for their moral health," she said. "
Hey hatches ( and everyone else) I am not surprised that same-sex marriages and civil-unions are not recognized in Syracuse! Well, don't you think somethings gotta be done about that? Hell, I should do something about that, TRUE DAT HOMIES!
blah blah blah
Honey, don't throw shade, OK?
From the most recent edition of Towleroad:
"Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's National Assembly recently said that he expects the government will soon legalize gay marriage or civil unions: "We have to abolish any form of discrimination against those persons. We are trying to see how to do that, whether it should be to grant them the right to marry or to have same-sex unions. We have to redefine the concept of marriage. Socialism should be a society that does not exclude anybody."
Gay culture in TV and film have helped to transform the nation's attitudes, the article argues.
A top judicial leader agrees that discrimination against gays has to go. Ruben Remigio Ferro, president of Cuba's Supreme Court: "Because of our historical heritage, Cuban society has been intolerant of homosexuals. But there has been a change in thinking. We are developing a program to educate people about sexual orientation. But it is not a problem that has been solved."
"Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's National Assembly recently said that he expects the government will soon legalize gay marriage or civil unions: "We have to abolish any form of discrimination against those persons. We are trying to see how to do that, whether it should be to grant them the right to marry or to have same-sex unions. We have to redefine the concept of marriage. Socialism should be a society that does not exclude anybody."
Gay culture in TV and film have helped to transform the nation's attitudes, the article argues.
A top judicial leader agrees that discrimination against gays has to go. Ruben Remigio Ferro, president of Cuba's Supreme Court: "Because of our historical heritage, Cuban society has been intolerant of homosexuals. But there has been a change in thinking. We are developing a program to educate people about sexual orientation. But it is not a problem that has been solved."