LGBTQ Breaking News Service

Italy’s LGBT community is in turmoil because of a great controversy a would-be law is causing. The DDL Zan (DDL stands for decree) is a bill which would create new categories of crime based on sexual and gender discrimination, adding to the already existing hate crimes punished by the Italian state.

Alessandro Zan, the signatory of the law and an MP, has pushed all the people from the LGBT community to publicly support his efforts. As a result, students, TV anchors, broadcasts, writers, artists and musicians have created momentum in favor of what would be a historic law.

Opponents to this would-be revolution are the right-wing parties including the Brothers of Italy and the League. They are strong in the Italian Senate are filibustering in every possible place. The traditionalist electorate claim the law is against liberty and promotes a “gender ideology”.

The issue of free-speech, a basic value for any democracy, is disputed by both sides. An article was added by Zan’s side in order not to punish those who believe traditional family is the only one possible or that a gay couple is not able to raise children.

What is striking is that the usual Italian gay organizations played only a minor role in the whole scenario. ArciGay and GayLib are the organizations that usually represent gays of the center-left and the center-right.

ArciGay is actually way more older and well-structured than GayLib and the LGBT community in the country is mainly leftist, but ArciGay failed to play the role of protagonist.

This, according to Davide Betti Balducci, former GayLib coordinator, is due to the “fact that both the groups have become very political and are more interested in moving LGBT voters to certain parties rather than those parties to the LGBT voters, leading to an erosion of the trust towards them.”

As a consequence, many gay activists went it alone or directly through center-left parties. Today in the Italian scenario it is possible to see different LGBT activists separated by political divisions across the community.

While that might be easily regarded as normal in every community and indeed witness the evolution of it, there are some activists who last January founded the Gay Party.

Davide Betti Balducci was one of them and in his mind it is clear why they had to do so. “What we aimed to do is lobby, as in every civil nation. Many times they (the traditionalists) accuse us of having built a secret lobby to influence the media and the parties in favour of gay rights. They’ve said such lies for ages to such an extent that eventually we decided to do so, but publicly. You may say that other organizations still exist now, but being politically committed they represent in my opinion almost the 2 or 3% percent of the LGBT people, as regarded as the politicized one, that is not our would-be-electorate”.

Indeed one of the catchy sentences the party uses for its campaign is “who are secretly gay will have the opportunity to do their coming out at the polls” and the party’s efforts seem to be directed towards a centrist LGBT electorate who often does not even come out as gay. “In the future we may reach 6% of the votes” Balducci says.

However, despite the calls for unity “Lgbt people should not be divided because they’re a family,” Betti Balducci doesn’t hide a certain discontent towards the usual LGBT associative realities which he portrays as “those who will be more in difficulty with our liberal revolution, because we will prompt them to work properly as they didn’t for years”.

This hostility is also visible by the lack of direct support to the Party from ArciGay or GayLib, whose silence has been incredibly loud. Betti Balducci argues that the main difference is that his party wants to change the way LGBT community communicates to the heterosexual or traditional public by using a more moderate and compromised language “because those Italians will be otherwise scared”.

Indeed, Italy is a country where  gay marriage or gay adoption is not yet legal and gays still suffer prejudice in society, especially in the lower classes. The strategy according to Betti Balducci should not be disruptive, but moderate, even if he totally agrees that both marriage and adoption should be achieved.

Obviously the political outcomes of such a practical commitment are a bet, as many Gay activists still prefer to be part of great parties rather than go on a party which, in Betti’s own words, houses people nonetheless of their political thoughts. That’s probably the reason why the party has not a precise economic policy, as it is clear when, asked about how the State should spend money coming from the European Union, Betti decides not to answer the question.

The danger in creating a party labelled gay is to ghettoize a community regardless of divergent political views. Being gay is not a parameter for a common political view as it is not so being heterosexual, and creating a lobby is far different from being a Party with political responsibilities.

Anyway, the party may effectively manage to have success. Italian politics has housed hundreds of parties in the latest decades and there’s plenty of space for another one, but it is indeed a pity for the LGBT community itself that during such a crucial period of its history a division is set between different activists about how to attain  their civil rights.

Italy’s LGBT community is in turmoil because of a great controversy a would-be law is causing. The DDL Zan (DDL stands for decree) is a bill which would create new categories of crime based on sexual and gender discrimination, adding to the already existing hate crimes punished by the Italian state.

Alessandro Zan, the signatory of the law and an MP, has pushed all the people from the LGBT community to publicly support his efforts. As a result, students, TV anchors, broadcasts, writers, artists and musicians have created momentum in favor of what would be a historic law.

Opponents to this would-be revolution are the right-wing parties including the Brothers of Italy and the League. They are strong in the Italian Senate are filibustering in every possible place. The traditionalist electorate claim the law is against liberty and promotes a “gender ideology”.

The issue of free-speech, a basic value for any democracy, is disputed by both sides. An article was added by Zan’s side in order not to punish those who believe traditional family is the only one possible or that a gay couple is not able to raise children.

What is striking is that the usual Italian gay organizations played only a minor role in the whole scenario. ArciGay and GayLib are the organizations that usually represent gays of the center-left and the center-right.

ArciGay is actually way more older and well-structured than GayLib and the LGBT community in the country is mainly leftist, but ArciGay failed to play the role of protagonist.

This, according to Davide Betti Balducci, former GayLib coordinator, is due to the “fact that both the groups have become very political and are more interested in moving LGBT voters to certain parties rather than those parties to the LGBT voters, leading to an erosion of the trust towards them.”

As a consequence, many gay activists went it alone or directly through center-left parties. Today in the Italian scenario it is possible to see different LGBT activists separated by political divisions across the community.

While that might be easily regarded as normal in every community and indeed witness the evolution of it, there are some activists who last January founded the Gay Party.

Davide Betti Balducci was one of them and in his mind it is clear why they had to do so. “What we aimed to do is lobby, as in every civil nation. Many times they (the traditionalists) accuse us of having built a secret lobby to influence the media and the parties in favour of gay rights. They’ve said such lies for ages to such an extent that eventually we decided to do so, but publicly. You may say that other organizations still exist now, but being politically committed they represent in my opinion almost the 2 or 3% percent of the LGBT people, as regarded as the politicized one, that is not our would-be-electorate”.

Indeed one of the catchy sentences the party uses for its campaign is “who are secretly gay will have the opportunity to do their coming out at the polls” and the party’s efforts seem to be directed towards a centrist LGBT electorate who often does not even come out as gay. “In the future we may reach 6% of the votes” Balducci says.

However, despite the calls for unity “Lgbt people should not be divided because they’re a family,” Betti Balducci doesn’t hide a certain discontent towards the usual LGBT associative realities which he portrays as “those who will be more in difficulty with our liberal revolution, because we will prompt them to work properly as they didn’t for years”.

This hostility is also visible by the lack of direct support to the Party from ArciGay or GayLib, whose silence has been incredibly loud. Betti Balducci argues that the main difference is that his party wants to change the way LGBT community communicates to the heterosexual or traditional public by using a more moderate and compromised language “because those Italians will be otherwise scared”.

Indeed, Italy is a country where  gay marriage or gay adoption is not yet legal and gays still suffer prejudice in society, especially in the lower classes. The strategy according to Betti Balducci should not be disruptive, but moderate, even if he totally agrees that both marriage and adoption should be achieved.

Obviously the political outcomes of such a practical commitment are a bet, as many Gay activists still prefer to be part of great parties rather than go on a party which, in Betti’s own words, houses people nonetheless of their political thoughts. That’s probably the reason why the party has not a precise economic policy, as it is clear when, asked about how the State should spend money coming from the European Union, Betti decides not to answer the question.

The danger in creating a party labelled gay is to ghettoize a community regardless of divergent political views. Being gay is not a parameter for a common political view as it is not so being heterosexual, and creating a lobby is far different from being a Party with political responsibilities.

Anyway, the party may effectively manage to have success. Italian politics has housed hundreds of parties in the latest decades and there’s plenty of space for another one, but it is indeed a pity for the LGBT community itself that during such a crucial period of its history a division is set between different activists about how to attain  their civil rights.

EXCLUSIVE: Production is getting underway on Evolution, a drama directed by BAFTA winner Nick Hamm (Driven) from a screenplay by David Hudgins (Friday Night Lights).

The film stars Marcia Gay Harden, Charlie Rowe, Josephine Langford, Zoe Colleti, Hannah Alligood, Jim Belushi and Diane Ladd.

Inspired by a true story, a young man with a bright future suffers a near fatal accident and recreates his new life with the help of an unlikely animal friend. An accident on the lake leaves Nate a quadriplegic, with little hope for his future. His resilient mother Claire puts her art career on hold and even risking her marriage to protect her son’s future. She discovers that the only thing that can make a profound difference in her son’s progress is providing him with an unlikely animal friend that helps the youth realize his life is still very much worth living.

Film is shooting in Los Angeles and North Carolina.

Piers Tempest is producing. Marie-Christine Jaeger-Firmenich of Fondation Robmar is exec producer. Pic is a Free Turn Films and Tempo Production in association with Axis Studios.

Endeavor Content is handling worldwide rights.

“This film is about hope and accomplishment, even in times of disaster and deepest despair,” said Hamm, who runs the Free Turn Films label with brother Jon Hamm. “I’ve been utterly inspired by the people at the heart of this true story and the film is a tribute to their resilience, ingenuity and strength of character. It’s a narrative of our times, encapsulating the feelings of hope and positivity coming out of adversity and what families can achieve, together.”

Dear Coleen, My marriage is at crisis point. The other day, I saw my husband’s phone light up and, for some reason, I took a look at it.

From the notification, it was clear he was looking for gay men in our local area.

While our marriage isn’t great, what sort of man uses a woman to hide behind his true self?

This makes a complete sham of our entire life together and I feel totally used. I could really do with some advice on what to do.

Coleen says

Well, you can’t unsee it or forget about it, so the only way forward is to tell your husband what you saw and ask him for an explanation.

He needs to answer all your questions honestly and talk about where you go from here.

He might have been confused about his sexuality for a long time or it might be something that’s more recent.

The only way to know is to ask him.

Of course you feel betrayed and that your relationship has been built on a lie – it’s completely natural in the circumstances – which is why it’s important to talk to him to get the full picture.

Whether or not he’s had sex with another guy, the intention is there.

Get all the latest celebrity news delivered straight to your inbox

From secret feuds and sexy scandals to the biggest showbiz headlines – we’re serving up a daily dose of gossip.

Get the inside scoop on all your favourite celebs with our daily newsletter delivered straight to your inbox for free.

You can sign up here.

And, obviously, it will be hard for you to move on as a couple if he’s constantly fighting the urge to live as a gay man.

Honesty is what’s required and then I think you have to focus on yourself and what you want for your future.

And don’t be embarrassed to ask for support from people you trust.

The marriage has obviously been struggling for some time and this seems to provide an explanation.

Play readings on Zoom are a pandemic placeholder few theater-lovers will be sad to give up. But they have on occasion provided an opportunity to experiment with casting, shedding fresh light on a role, a performer and even a playwright.

A reading of Larry Kramer’s “The Normal Heart,” a benefit for the ONE Archives Foundation, did just that on Saturday night. Sterling K. Brown and Laverne Cox were the headliners in an ensemble directed by Paris Barclay.

Many were no doubt tuning into see what Cox, the “Orange Is the New Black” star, would do with the role of Dr. Emma Brookner, the pioneering AIDS doctor who sounds the alarm from her motorized wheelchair that a mysterious new disease is cutting a deadly swath through the gay community.

Cox’s exciting presence expanded the play’s LGBTQ reach, but her portrayal of Dr. Brookner was undermined by earnest line readings. In truth, I was ready to click off when something powerfully drew me in: Brown, in the role of Kramer’s surrogate, Ned Weeks, illuminating the contradictions and complexities of a hero who was nothing if not exasperatingly human.

Brown, who’s Black and straight, didn’t try to summon the white and gay Kramer back to life. The accent and mannerisms belonged to a newly interpreted Ned Weeks, a Ned Weeks who neither looked nor sounded like the author who created him.

But what Brown captured so brilliantly, even in the compartmentalized squares of a virtual reading, were the internal forces prodding the character’s conscience into action. Social justice of this magnitude isn’t an abstract phenomenon. Beneath Ned’s moral fury lies a great deal of sorrow, private and public.

Elias Canetti, writing about Franz Kafka, made the observation that though “life’s horror” is never out of sight, “most people notice it only on occasion.” But there are others “whom inner forces appoint to bear witness.”

In tracing Ned’s journey from accidental activist to AIDS crusader, Brown helped us connect the character’s alienation and longing — his brokenness in a homophobic society — to his refusal to look away from communal suffering. Ned’s woundedness drives him to see what others, less adapted to being out of favor, would prefer to ignore.

Story continues

In Brown’s scenes with Jeremy Pope, who touchingly played Felix Turner, a New York Times reporter with whom Ned falls in love, the personal and the political were heartbreakingly joined. Ned’s struggle for intimate connection and commitment became one with his fight to get the world to give a damn about dying gay men.

During the rocky start of a fateful date, Felix asks Ned, “What’s the matter? Don’t you think you’re attractive? Don’t you like your body?” Brown made what seemed like an unconscious gesture, puffing his cheek as though Ned were unsure whether to speak or swallow his shame.

The specificity of the performance, the truthfulness of psychological detail, dissolved the boundaries between past and present. The alchemy of actor and role established an unspoken yet profound connection between the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the government shrugged at the mass casualties of a stigmatized population, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately taken the lives of Black and brown Americans.

Although one might expect that a benefit reading of “The Normal Heart” for an organization dedicated to preserving LGBTQ cultural history would seek out talent from that community, the choice of Brown was inspired. Not only is he an exceptional, Emmy-winning actor, but his performance represented an act of coalition building, a recognition of shared struggle and a refusal to let the walls of identity serve as a prison.

Without dabbling in lesson-drawing anachronism, Brown’s Ned harmonized the cries of AIDS activists and Black Lives Matter protestors. An acute sense of endangered humanity and a desperate hunger for justice pointed the way.

For Ned, anger is a form of love. Early on, he asks Dr. Brookner whether having a big mouth is a symptom of AIDS. She tells him, “No, a cure.”

Casting that reminds us of the perpetual need for this cure is invaluable. But Brown offered something more: He showed us the mourning under the militancy.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

LGBT activists have complained that the Government has decided to consult the public on the scope of plans to ban so-called ‘conversion therapy’.

Earlier this week, the Government used the Queen’s Speech to announce that it will consider the effects of a ban covering sexuality and ‘gender identity’ on religious freedom in England and Wales.

But activists led by Church of England General Synod member Jayne Ozanne say that there is no need to discuss religious exemptions. They are demanding that the ban covers the ordinary work of churches including prayer, preaching and pastoral care.

‘Hate prayer’

Ozanne tweeted after the announcement: “Prayer isn’t prayer if it causes you to hate yourself for being LGBT! It’s actually ‘Hate prayer’. It is dangerous, damaging & must be included in a bill to #BanConversationtherapy”.

She told inews: “I just think the government has consulted long enough, it has done research it’s never published. Now is the time for action, before more lives are lost.

“We are in a Groundhog Day of consultations.”

‘Abuse’

In an interview with Jeremy Vine, Ozanne hit out at religious leaders who wish to continue praying with or supporting same-sex attracted people who seek to live in accordance with the Bible’s teachings on gender and sexuality.

She claimed: “It’s deeply damaging and it’s a form of abuse.”

She said only prayer which allows people to explore their sexuality or gender identity should be permitted, and that any prayer with a “predetermined outcome” should be banned.

Former evangelical Steve Chalke tweeted: “I believe in ‘religious freedom’. It is a basic human right. But it does not include the right to attempt to suppress or change another person’s sexuality or gender orientation. The govt’s proposed #BanConversionTherapy bill must clarify that.”

Legal action

After the announcement in Parliament, the Government issued a statement saying it will ensure that “medical professionals, religious leaders, teachers and parents can continue to be able to have open and honest conversations with people”.

The Christian Institute has warned the Government it will pursue legal action if a ban outlaws the ‘wrong kind of prayer’ or opinions about sex.

In a detailed legal opinion for the Institute, Jason Coppel QC confirmed that activists’ proposed definitions of the law would criminalise the ordinary work of churches.