This weekend catch the Billboard Music Awards, Nurse Jackie meets with her divorce lawyers, a new episode of The Borgias and showings of As Good as It Gets and Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

What to Watch: Saturday, May 19

8:00pm: As Good as It Gets, Flix (2.5 hrs) REPEAT

A single mother, a gay artist and a misanthropic author form an unlikely friendship. Watch the trailer below.

8:30pm: Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Comedy Central (2.5 hrs) REPEAT

Sacha Baron Cohen stars as out French race car driver Jean Girard, rival and eventual friend of lead Ricky Bobby (Will Ferrell), in this 2007 GLAAD Media Award nominated film. Check out the trailer below.

What to Watch: Sunday, May 20

8:00pm: Billboard Music Awards, ABC (3 hrs) NEW

Chart topping artists are honored as Julie Bowen and Ty Burrell host. Keep an eye out for Lady Gaga who has a very impressive 10 nominations.

9:00pm: Nurse Jackie, Showtime (30 mins) NEW

Jackie meets with her divorce lawyers for the first time; a patient wants apologies after suffering an injury at the hospital; and Akalitus creates an elaborate charade when an old mentor of hers is admitted as a dementia patient.

10:00pm: The Borgias, Showtime (1 hr) NEW

Juan lays siege to a castle; Lucrezia stalls her family’s attempts to marry her off; and Della Rovere recruits a young man to be part of his suicide assassin plot.

_____________________________

About TV Gayed
Grab the remote or set your DVR! GLAAD brings you the most up-to-date listing of LGBT content on television every weekday.  CheckGLAAD Blog for daily TV Gayed posts!

About GLAAD
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) amplifies the voice of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality. For more information, see www.glaad.org, www.facebook.com/glaad and www.twitter.com/glaad.

Hoy, 17 de mayo, que es el Día Internacional Contra la Homofobia y Transfobia, la Organización Panamericana de la Salud dio a conocer un reporte de posicionamiento en que denunció las llamadas “terapias de conversión”–programas que pretenden cambiar la orientación sexual de las personas lesbianas, gays, y bisexuales–y, además, hizo un llamado a instituciones académicas, gobiernos y los medios de comunicación a tomar las medidas adecuadas para condenar y educar acerca de estas prácticas.

 La Organización Panamericana de la Salud (que es oficina regional de la Organización Mundial de la Salud ) recordó y enfatizó también que la homosexualidad no es una  enfermedad, por lo que declaró que los programas de conversión son prácticas ilegítimas que atentan contra principios éticos.

Asimismo, es de destacar también el editorial escrito por Pedro Frisneda, editor de salud de La Opinión (el diario de habla hispana más grande de Estados Unidos), en que señaló las consecuencias de la homofobia en la sociedad, y en que hizo un llamado a toda la gente a participar en el Día Internacional Contra la Homofobia.

El medio hispano de habla inglesa, Fox News Latino, publicó una nota acerca de eventos por el Día Internacional Contra la Homofobia que se llevaron a cabo en América Latina.

Haz clic aquí para ver un video  que destaca las actividades en honor a este día que se realizaron por todo el mundo

 

 

 

This week in New York, the five major broadcast networks previewed their upcoming fall seasons for advertisers, and gave us all an idea of what the 2012-2013 broadcast television season will look like.  Though it’s still early, we already know of several new shows LGBT viewers should definitely look forward to.

ABC

ABC will remain one of the most LGBT-inclusive networks on television when it brings back shows like Modern Family, Happy Endings, Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, Revenge, and Don’t Trust the B- in Apt 23 next season.  Though we haven’t officially confirmed any new LGBT characters in the upcoming ABC slate, comedy legend Lily Tomlin will play a supporting role in the new Reba Macintyre sitcom Malibu Country, as will out actor Jai Rodriguez.  It also looks as though the mother in How to Live With Your Parents (played by Weeds’ Elizabeth Perkins) is open to exploring her sexuality as she mentions in the below trailer.

CBS

CBS’ high and steady ratings mean they don’t have many holes in their existing schedule to fill with new material, but of the four shows they’ll premiere next year, one will help CBS make good on their long-ago stated intention of including more gay characters in their programming.  The new sitcom Partners from Will & Grace creators Max Mutchnick and David Kohan will follow two best friends since childhood (one gay, one straight) whose new romantic relationships begin to affect their platonic own.  Mutchnick and Kohan based the show’s concept on their own long-standing friendship, and cast Micheal Urie and Brandon Routh as the Mutchnick stand-in (written as an architect) and his vegan nurse boyfriend respectively.  This is a significant step up for a network that has for several years only been able to cite Kalinda on The Good Wife as a regular LGBT character.  You can get a behind-the-scenes look at the show below.

The CW

There haven’t been any confirmed LGBT characters in the new CW shows, but we definitely know the most likely place for them to show up.  The Carrie Diaries will premiere in midseason, and serves as a loose prequel to the enormously popular HBO series Sex and the City.  One of show’s listed characters also included in the Candace Bushnell book it is based on is Walt Reynolds, who is one of Carrie’s best friends that later comes out of the closet and dates the school quarterback.  He is portrayed in the pilot by Brendan Dooling, shown here in an on-set photo with Anna Sophia Robb, who plays Carrie.

Fox

Nothing much to report in the Fox programming thus far, though out creator Kevin Williamson’s new serial-killer project, The Following, will premiere on the net next fall.  Glee remains the network’s most LGBT inclusive program (not to mention one of the most inclusive on television), but we’ll have to wait and see which students will return in the show’s fourth season when it moves to a prime new Thursday time-slot following  The X-Factor and American Idol.

NBC

In terms of new LGBT characters, the most promising programming slate is over on NBC, which will feature a new comedy from Glee creator Ryan Murphy about a gay couple and the surrogate who agrees to carry their child. Openly gay actor Andrew Rannells (The Book of Mormon) and Justin Bartha play the expectant fathers in The New Normal, who are joined by cast-members Georgia King, Ellen Barkin, and Real Housewives star Nene Leakes.  Also premiering will be Chicago Fire, about the lives of emergency personnel in a Chicago firehouse, which includes a lesbian paramedic played by Lauren German.  You can see previews of both shows below.

 

Today, May 17, on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, the Pan American Health Organization released a position statement in which it denounced so-called “conversion therapies”—programs that claim to change the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people—and called for government, media and academia to take appropriate measures to condemn these practices and to educate the public. Reaffirming the medically-supported position that homosexuality is not a disease, the Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization therefore declared conversion programs to be illegitimate and unethical practices.

Also noteworthy is an op-ed by Pedro Frisneda, the health editor of La Opinión, the nation’s largest Spanish-language daily, in which he emphasized that homophobia has ramifications for society as a whole, and called for all people to take part on International Day Against Homophobia.

Fox News Latino ran a story by Rebekah Sager on actions in Latin America.

Check out this video on actions around the world and a photo essay on how some Iranian activists celebrated the day.

 

 

 

 

Today is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO). IDAHO, which is observed annually on May 17, was originally created to commemorate the 1990 removal of ‘homosexuality’ from the World Health Organization’s list of mental disorders. Since then, the day has become a time for reflection on the state of equality and a time to take action towards furthering the well-being and legal protection of LGBT people around the world.

In a statement on the IDAHO website, United Nations Development Programme administrator, Helen Clark, discussed the various ways the organization is addressing the international LGBT community’s needs, both through global and local initiatives. Just last year, the UN Human Rights Council passed their first ever resolution on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity. In March of this year, UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navi Pillay presented a groundbreaking study on violence and discrimination against LGBT people at the Council’s 19th session in Geneva, Switzerland. Over the past year and a half, the UN General Commission on HIV has also been looking into relationships between legal environments, human rights, and the growing rate of those afflicted by HIV. At the local level, the UNDP has supported initiatives in Latin America, such as the transgender organization REDLAC Trans which worked on legal reform leading to Argentina’s recent passage of the Gender Identity Law. The UNDP also supports an LGBT oral history initiative in India called the Bolo Project.

Since its beginnings, IDAHO has been officially recognized by advocates and governments around the world, generating workshops, community forums, and campaigns to raise awareness of LGBT issues and work to create or improve policies and protections. It is also a platform from which to garner increased media attention for the LGBT community internationally. Voices that are not heard enough have the chance to speak out and loudly about what matters to them and what needs to be done in order to meet their needs. As IDAHO International Campaigns Officer and Advisory Board Member, Ryan Ubuntu Olson noted in an Advocate op-ed today, this day “is not just a day where activists gather to address profound disappointment in the dismissal of theirs and others’s humanity. It is truly a global call to consciousness from an amalgamation of people who want to be seen, to be heard and to be recognized for the vibrant essence that represents our shared human condition.”

GLAAD urges the media to share the stories of IDAHO and recognize this day for its important role in fostering equality worldwide. 

Singer and LGBT icon Donna Summer passed away in Florida this morning at age 63, according to TMZ.  Since the very beginnings of her career in the 1970s, Summer was a gay icon and indelible symbol of the disco-era.

In a 2008 interview with PrideSource, the singer credited her LGBT fans with helping to launch her career, saying “From the beginning, my whole scene broke out in the gay clubs… I don’t know if I would have a career if it hadn’t been, in some ways, for the way ‘Love to Love You Baby’ started off and everybody jumped on it. It was really in the gay clubs the song took off —they really embraced that new sound. I have to give credit where credit is due.”

In the mid-80s, rumors began that the singer had made homophobic remarks during the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  She attempted to counter those rumors in an interview with The Advocate in 1989, saying “I’ve lost a lot of friends who have died of AIDS. I’m hurtin as much as anyone else at the amount of people who are gone.”

Today many LGBT sites, community members and allies have spoken out about Summer and her music – share your thoughts below!

Following an incredibly exploitative piece in the New York Times about the death of transgender woman Lorena Escalera in a fire this past weekend, and the newspaper’s subsequent refusal to acknowledge the true problems with their story, transgender advocates and allies have generated a powerful response asserting the immense hurt felt by so many over this coverage. On Facebook, Twitter, and several blogs, the community response has been overwhelming, with people sharing memories of Lorena, criticizing the offensive Times article, and commenting on the general lack of respect given to transgender lives, especially the lives of transgender women of color.

Hundreds of Facebook users have left comments on GLAAD’s blog posts about the story and on GLAAD’s Facebook page, calling the New York Times piece “disappointing” and “shameful,” and calling for a retraction. Performer and RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Carmen Carrera, who knew Lorena, commented on her own Facebook fan page, saying, “RIP to an amazing and happy person. I was lucky enough to know her and share the stage with her! I’m SO happy that GLAAD spoke out about the stupid NY Times article. It’s about time people realize it’s NOT OK to exploit transgender people. I really wish people would have a little bit more respect.” Similar sentiments have been expressed on Twitter regarding Lorena. Trans advocate Janet Mock has been a prominent voice tweeting about Lorena, and many more Twitter users are using the hashtag #LorenaEscalera to share their thoughts.

The blogosphere has also erupted with outrage and sadness about the way Lorena’s death has been reported on. Feministing called for readers to take action by contacting the New York Times and letting them know “you’re sick and tired of their victim blaming and transphobia.” Autumn Sandeen at Pam’s House Blend noted the Times’ unethical emphasis on details that had no relevance to Lorena’s death. Jennifer Finney Boylan, trans author and New York Times contributing writer spoke out, as did Colorlines and XoJane. At the Huffington Post’s Gay Voices section, transgender advocate and actress Laverne Cox wrote a moving piece honoring Lorena and discussing the broader issues faced by transgender women, saying, “I have struggled and continue to struggle to not only have dignity and to carve out a place in the world for myself but to treat myself as if my life matters. My life matters. Transgender lives matter. Lorena Escalera’s life mattered. Rest in peace, Lorena.”

Other reports on Lorena’s death are proving that coverage could have happened much differently than the New York Times’ article and their defense of it suggests. Local news station New York One reported accurately and respectfully about a vigil held in Lorena’s memory, elevating the voices of those who love and miss her. New York news website DNA.info also covered the story, quoting members of the House of Xtravaganza who remember Lorena as a talented performer and a caring friend.

GLAAD thanks everyone who has helped raise awareness of the unfair treatment Lorena’s life received from the New York Times and asks individuals to continue spreading the message that such blatant disrespect for transgender people is unacceptable.

Tonight’s season finale of Grey’s Anatomy has the doctors fighting for their lives, while on Scandal‘s season finale the team rushes to help Quinn and Cyrus turns to Olivia for help.

What to Watch: Thursday, May 17

9:00pm: Grey’s Anatomy, ABC (1 hr) SEASON FINALE

The doctors of Seattle Grace fight for their lives while also trying to protect their peers and patients. Richard plans a dinner for the residents; Teddy gets a tempting new offer; and Bailey and Ben make a decision that will change their relationship. Watch a sneak peek below.

10:00pm: Scandal, ABC (1 hr) SEASON FINALE

Quinn finds herself in a compromising position and Olivia and the team rush to help her. Meanwhile, Cyrus is forced to seek help from Olivia when Billy Chambers’ makes an announcement that could ruin Fitz’ term. Check out a preview clip below.

Not sure how I missed it, but it turns out that public thinker, same-sex marriage opponent, and Prop 8 star witness David Blankenhorn weighed in on GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project  around the time of the much discussed project’s launch. Since he plays such a unique role in this whole “culture war” (Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat, despite his conservative ties) and raised so many points that I feel worthy of address, I thought it’d be good to take a few better-late-than-never minutes and go over some of the untruths, unfair associations, and outright misrepresentations Mr. Balnkenhorm directs at the project.

Let’s start with his initial blog post. Here’s the bulk of it:

Of the 36 people on the list, I think I know, either well or well enough to say hello to, about 8 or 9. At least some of them, I am confident, should NOT be on such a list.

But my question is (and it’s not rhetorical, I mean it as a question): Should there be such a list? I can think of valid reasons to make such a list, among them being an effort to rebut what is viewed as homophobic public speech. And I don’t believe that making such a list in and of itself constitutes an effort to violate anyone’s right to free speech. But something about these lists also makes me nervous. Palmer had lists. McCarthy had lists. Hoover had lists. There is something about these lists that smells bad.
Gladd [sic] to help? [Family Scholars Blog]

Okay, so let’s stop here and mention a few things that will hopefully serve as clarification, not just for Mr. Blankenhorn, but for others who have weighed in on GLAAD CAP.

First the matter of whether someone should or should not be included. I’ve heard this mentioned a few times in association with CAP, usually coupled with personal anecdotes about how congenial this or that person may be. Well, okay—who’s denying that? No one at GLAAD is saying that anyone whose rhetoric has been detailed is a “bad” person. These kinds of personal character judgments have no place in this project. The sole focus is on the words, actions, and outreaches that these individuals have put out to the public for the sake of political gain, personal profit, and the fostering of a worldview that stigmatizes and marginalizes LGBT people. Whether or not an individual is good at witty repartee over coffee is completely irrelevant.

Then as for Blankenhorn’s other chief criticism, that lists are innately scary because people like J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthey made and kept them? That’s, quite frankly, a preposterous point for a scholar to make. For starters, no one’s really calling CAP a “list” except its critics. While any assortment of data can be reaonably referred to as a list, CAP’s critics pointedly use the term to do exactly what Blankenhorn is helping them do here, which is invoke images of “blacklists.” Fair enough, they have the right to make such assertions.  But it’s their doing, not GLAAD’s.

Pressing on—Blankenhorn went on to expound on his thoughts in the comments section that followed his post:

I can suggest four reasons why I think you and others of good will who reject anti-gay bias might need to be nervous about this kind of list making.

1. It purports to be a public-service effort by an organization accurately to represent the views of the organization’s ideological opponents to third parties who have decision making authority that is of interest to both sides. Now, maybe you think that that can be done honestly and fairly in this case, but if you do, you must think that the folks at GLADD are bucking for sainthood. It may be possible for Newt Ginrgich’s [sic] press secretary accurately to represent Barack Obama’s views to a third party in the media that has decision making authority that matters to both Gingrich and Obama. Sure, that is theoretically possible.

2. It seeks overtly to create a stigmatized group. It doesn’t just say, I think Billly [sic] is a bigot. It says, Billy is a member of the bigots [sic] group. I think there is a difference — and so, apparently, does Gladd [sic], or else they would simply continue to say, Billy is a bigot (which they already do). That’s why McCarthy rarely said, “Billy is a communist” but instead usually said “I have list” which (sometimes) did have Billy’s name on it.
Gladd [sic] to help? [Family Scholars Blog]

Great, so let’s take another pause, as the inaccurate presumptions are too many to hold off on.

In point one, Blankehorn seems to be suggesting that because GLAAD holds a differing point-of-view from those in the CAP project (at least on LGBT matters), then GLAAD is incapable of objectivity. This might be a fair criticism (or at least point of discussion) if the CAP project was made up of anything more than the commentators’ own words. Sure, in Op-Eds and in blog posts like this one, people involved with the project have expounded on the CAP’s purpose and intent. But as for the project itself? There is virtually no editorializing, and no point of view other than those of the people profiled is employed. It’s nonsensical to raise questions of accuracy about a project in which almost every piece of information is a direct quote, and which backs up every single bit of information with the related audio, visual, or print data (often times linking out to sites hostile to GLAAD’s own cause).

In point number two, Blankehorn tosses out the “bigots” card. Again, these are his own words, not GLAAD’s. The project simply notes the reality of these commentators: who they are, who they work for, and, most importantly, what they themselves have said to build their profiles. If there is a stigmatization attached to that, it is self-crafted.  The only label GLAAD is applying to these indivuals is “Pundit of some note who has a documented record of harsh anti-LGBT rhetoric.”

Let’s move on:

3. It purports accurately to convey other people’s inner, rarely-revealed motivations and beliefs. This can get a little, dicey, don’t you think (esp. given point one)? I see this all the time in the Arab public debate, in which I’m tangentially involved. People who want for whatever reason to discredit Arab public intellectuals constantly say, “That’s what they say in English, but wait til you hear what we heard them say in Arabic! We have a file …” I’m always uneasy when I see that tactic (even though sometimes the shoe does seem to fit).

4. It’s almost certain to coarsen the discourse. The “I have a list” meme almost always uglifies the overall public conversation, in part because, even if done with care, it comes reasonably close to character assassination and has, as it is intended to have, an ominous, threatening, aggressive quality to it. By the way, the people who do this kind of thing almost always say…that their special status as victims, or as keepers of some flame of world-historical importance, ethically justifies the activity (which otherwise might come off as a kind of bullying).

Overall, the list may produce the result of reducing the public visibility and general reputation of the people on the list, at least in the eyes of the third parties who have some authority. (In other respects, it may backfire, just as those who were on Nixon’s list became sort of folk heroes to many, and just as Dalton Trumbo, who was on McCarthy’s list, is now widely respected, whereas Elia Kazan, who named names to the the House Un-American Activities Committee, is now widely disrespected in some circles for having done so.) But in the main, this effort at list making may damage the ability of these 36 to be heard and/or respected in the media.
Gladd [sic] to help? [Family Scholars Blog]

Blankenhorn negates his number three point himself, with the last line about the shoe-fitting. Because the difference between his setup and the CAP project is that the CAP project isn’t making claims about what anyone supposedly said in another language—the project is presenting what was said, verbatim, nothing lost in translation. The shoe undeniably fits, regardless of personal view; the only variable is how favorably or negatively one may regard said shoe.

Point number four is particularly rich. Blankenhorn worries that CAP will “uglify” the debate. He accuses it of “character assassination.” He suggests the project has an “ominous, threatening, aggressive quality to it.” To which I seriously have to ask: Have you read any of the CAP profiles, David? The sole reason CAP exists is because people like the forty or so currently on the project have made it a  mission to knock the character of LGBT people and the LGBT rights movement, often in EXTREMELY aggressive ways. If a project that does little more than round up these very quips and blips comes across as ugly, then it’s only because one finds the rhetoric that led to its creation ugly. Without that rhetoric, there would be no need for CAP. Scratch that—without that rhetoric, there would be no possibility for CAP. All CAP is is a collection of quotes. That’s it.

Then Blankenorn wonders about how the media will receive CAP, suggesting that both aggrandizement and effacement could produce unintended consequences. This one is interesting, because this consideration is precisely what the project is asking of the media and the public at large. All GLAAD is asking is for people who utilize these commentators’ services to take a breath, take a look, and consider some of the things that these same commentators have said about LGBT people in order to become known commentators. GLAAD is of course of the view that the great majority of American citizens who do so will see the harsh statements in a similar light that GLAAD and most LGBT people do.  But it’s those who read the CAP profiles who ultimately make that choice, not GLAAD.

We also can’t move on without mentioning merit. Here again, in the above block, Blankenhorn throws out Nixon’s list and the House Un-American Activities Committee, as if these are fitting parallels. If you know anything about American history, you know offensive this is. Both of those lists, with varying degrees of brutality, made crude, inaccurate assumptions that were meant to demonize undeserving people with false information and histrionic witch-hunting. GLAAD CAP, however, is a reference guide crafted by an organization that fights back against the continued inaccuracies lobbed at a long-marginalized minority. GLAAD is not threatening anyone’s livelihood or rights (CNN punditry is not a right, FYI). Also, because it bears repeating: GLAAD is not even threatening anyone, but simply hosting data that is only available to any of us because these commentators put it out to the public.

Asking “Are you now or have you ever been on air with Chris Matthews?” is worlds away from asking “Are you now or have you ever been a Communist?”

Now we can move forward:

More broadly, it may work indirecty [sic] to drive from the public discourse — from mainstream conversation — certain words, phrases, and arguments, in particular the words, phrases and arguments that are especially disagreeable to the folks at Gladd [sic] and those who support them. (Gosh, I hope I never say any of those words! Maybe I should learn what arguments are on their list, and make sure always to denounce them and never even indirectly endorse them! I wonder, is silence on these bad words acceptable, or, in order to make sure I avoid being on the list, must I affirmatively repudiate the bad words? Staying safe can get complicated … )

Finally, this kind of thing may also set an example for others to follow. Pissed off at secularists who say bad things about religious people? Pissed off at religious people who say ugly things about secularists? One, two, many lists!!

Speaking to the first paragraph: If GLAAD CAP leads to more measured discourse or, better yet, the affirmative repudiation of the harsh words that are housed in the project, then how is that not a good? GLAAD will more than welcome someone like Tony Perkins denouncing the purposely harsh things he has said in order to increase his profile! I really can’t see how a less hostile discourse is a negative. For anyone.

On his second point: The possibility of derivative projects is not a valid criticism. Human beings have free will, and we are all responsible for our public engagement. If someone on the anti-LGBT side wishes to hoist a pro-equality commentator by his or her own petard, then that someone has that right. Those who have said unfortunate things (on any side) must own these things that they have said. There is nothing unfair in any of that!  When you choose to become a public debater on matters of human import, you take on a responsibility.  With responsibility comes accountability! 

My overall take on David Blankenhorn’s view of CAP is that it is skewed because of his relationships with certain people whoe work is documented in the project. In two more lengthy comment blocks from which I didn’t quote, Blankenhorn talks about his personal friendship with NOM co-founder (and GLAAD CAPper) Robert George. He also mentions that he has at least a congenial relationship with eight or nine others. As someone who has relationships with all kinds of people on the other side of the political, ideological, and theological fence than myself, I understand how these personal dealings can shape things.

Though if I am right and personal dealings do make it harder for Mr. Blankenhorn to see and judge CAP on its merits, then he is actually falling victim to the same sort of traps that he attaches (wrongly, in my view) to the project. Namely, Blankenhorn is letting character judgement and/or personal biases shape his view of the concrete, fully documented CAP data. I think the burden for all of us who engage on these kinds of matters in the public space is to try our darnedest to focus on the actual facts, words, and deeds rather than physical characteristics, personal motivations, or preconceived notions. For instance, I personally very much applaud the work a group like Focus on the Family has done in terms of feeding and clothing the homeless. That said, the reality of positive FoTF outreach doesn’t change the fact that one of this organization’s top voices has called my sexual orientation (and by extension, my marriage and family) a “particularly evil lie of Satan,” or that its staff members work against my rights in every single public policy area on both a state and federal level.  

Heck, someone who works at Focus on the Family once bought me a veggie burger, on the organization’s dime. It was really good, as was the conversation. A few days later, I still slammed this special interest group—quite hard, in fact—for once again pushing scientifically-discredited “ex-gay” therapy. Those are not irreconcilable positions.  The people are the people, and the work is the work.

But going back to Blankehorn specifically—I think he knows that GLAAD CAP is perfectly fair and even good for people like him, who oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose hostility. He says in one of his final expressed thoughts on the matter:

Finally, I want to say again, in case it’s not clear enough, that I detest and reject anti-gay bias and anti-gay hate speech. My point is, that I don’t think that this list, or this type of list-making in general, is a good or fair way to combat the disease.
Gladd [sic] to help? [Family Scholars Blog]

So I have to wonder now: Is it fair that I just documented public person David Blankenhorn’s words for the post you just read? Is it good that I publicly presented things that he himself expressed in a public forum? It this, my greater sunlight that I shine for the purpose of better understanding, an acceptable way to treat a highly polarized conversation that often turns harsh and disagreeable? Is it right for me to want to opine on these subjects, not so much to “combat a disease,” but rather to push back against those who oftentimes make my life and love sound like a threatening ailment?  Is the transparency and insight that I hoped to achieve in this blog post beneficial to all of us who might want to better understand the subject? 

If the answer to all of those questions is yes, then that is the place to end this post. Why? Because those are the exact same questions that led to GLAAD CAP’s creation.

Openly lesbian designer Kara Laricks came out on top as the winner of the first season of NBC’s Fashion Star. Her winning prize is a six million dollar contract with merchandisers Macy’s, Saks Fifth Avenue and H&M to sell her capsule collection designs featured on last night’s finale.

After struggling in the first week of the competition, Laricks has shined in each challenge since. Laricks left her job as a fourth grade teacher in New York to compete and has spoken several times about her students being her inspiration, while naming her partner Melissa as her biggest supporter.

“This is an opportunity to put my money where my mouth is and really show all of those former students that you can do it, regardless of sexual orientation,” she says in an interview with AfterEllen. “That’s just a small portion of my life. I’m a former teacher, I’m a daughter, I’m a sister, all of those other great things, in addition to being a designer and a lesbian. I really hope that my face will make it into living rooms across America as just another person who is really following her passion.”

Watch Laricks first interview as America’s First Fashion Star below.

The Kara Laricks Collection can be bought now at Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy’s, H&M and their respective websites. Her accessory line, Collar, Stand + Tie, can be purchased in her online store. Laricks can also be found on twitter and facebook.