LGBTQ Breaking News Service

A security advisor has shared why he became an ally member for the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals Trust (BHRUT) LGBT+ network for this Pride Month 2021 and called for others to do the same.

Mark Stephens, who works mostly at Queen’s Hospital in Romford but also across BHRUT, has shared his Pride story in celebration this June. 

Attending BHRUT’s LGBT+ Network for staff – which relaunched in 2019 – Mark said he remembers finishing the meeting and colleague commenting on the fact that he is straight.

He said that it didn’t bother him much, but got him thinking: “What did it matter if I was?”  

“I’ve seen a difference in how people are treated right back to my days in the military in the early 80s, when my girlfriend at the time was kicked out for being accused of lesbianism, just for lying on opposite ends of the same bed with another female,” Mark said. 

You may also want to watch:

“The rule was that you had to have at least a foot on the floor. We’ve come a long way since then and I find that the inclusivity between staff in our trust is mostly good, however, I’ve seen the way patients and visitors sometimes react to our staff due to their sexuality.” 

As an ally member in the LGBT+ network, Mark provides support to its chair and head of patient experience, Victoria Miles-Gale, who said he is the most “consistent ally”. 

She said: “He supports us in everything we do and this makes a huge difference to me, to our network’s members, and our wider LGBT+ community, including those we care for. 

“I am so grateful to Mark for his support, and would like to encourage more of our colleagues to join us as allies.” 

Mark said: “I’m proud to be an ally and doing my bit to ensure our trust can offer the most inclusive service for our LGBT+ community.  

“We need more people to become allies to challenge negative behaviour and help us get to a place where everyone is treated equally, on a level playing field.” 

The ongoing debate surrounding religious exemptions to LGBT anti-discrimination laws remains unsettled for workplaces, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow ruling in a same-sex foster parents case sidestepped the clash percolating in courts and Congress.

Thursday’s unanimous decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia found that a city ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution when officials excluded a Catholic charity from part of the city’s foster-care program because the group wouldn’t help place children with same-sex couples.

Attorneys and academics said the ruling fell short of a sweeping re-framing of religious rights under the Constitution, which would have undercut other discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The high court held in a landmark decision last year that Title VII protects LGBT workers.

“The immediate impact is fairly muted,” said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University, who focuses on constitutional and employment law. “The bigger fights about religious rights and LGBTQ people have been punted down the road for another day. Those fights will continue.”

The decision focused on the specifics of the Philadelphia ordinance, and left open larger questions about when a “neutral law of general applicability,” such as an anti-discrimination law, will violate the First Amendment’s protections for the free exercise of religion.

This clash between religious rights and anti-bias laws has raged in courts in employment and public accommodations cases, as well as on the Hill where a comprehensive LGBT rights bill known as the Equality Act awaits Senate consideration. There’s some indication that the high court will ultimately answer those broader questions, attorneys and academics say.

Kreis compared Fulton to similar narrow rulings on the issue, including Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the 2018 case about a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

“They took a scalpel to the Philadelphia ordinance,” he said. “It wasn’t the ax that many LGBT groups feared.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which brought the case to the Supreme Court, pushed for the court to upend its precedent for when laws clash with religious beliefs, but cheered the decision. In a statement, the nonprofit legal group said the justices “recognized that protecting faith-affirming agencies will ensure foster children in need have every opportunity available to find a loving home.”

Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, said the decision could lead to confusion about when religious groups can discriminate, but added that it at least didn’t limit the government’s power to protect against bias.

“At the same time, we can’t help noticing that we have had a string of decisions in which the court has rejected a broad license to discriminate but has nevertheless found a way to rule on behalf of a religious claimant based on unique facts,” Pizer said.

Litigation Ahead

The foster care case had the potential to have a sweeping effect on government enforcement of anti-bias laws at work and beyond. In addition to Title VII, at least 23 states have specific anti-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals, according to Bloomberg Law.

“This decision will invite a lot more litigation,” said David Flugman, a partner at Selendy & Gay PLLC, who heads up the firm’s diversity and inclusion efforts. “The question now is how will courts deal with analogous factual circumstances as groups push for Free Exercise claims.”

After last year’s Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, the question about religious defenses to workplace discrimination liability was left unaddressed.

“The Bostock decision was landmark, but it left as many questions open as it did closed,” said Michelle Phillips, a principal of Jackson Lewis P.C., who represents and advises employers.

It’s clear the Supreme Court is open to taking up broader questions about religion and other issues, she said.

In Texas, Christian groups are suing the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get a carveout from Title VII’s LGBT anti-discrimination requirements. They’re seeking to represent classes of employers that have religious and non-religious objections to homosexuality or “transgender behavior.”

“Is there a Constitutional right to discriminate that would override Title VII in some context? That remains a question,” said James Esseks, director of the LGBTQ & HIV Project for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Narrow for Now

In Fulton, Catholic Social Services asked the justices to revisit 30-year-old precedent governing religious exemptions from “neutral laws of general applicability” that don’t expressly target religion.

In concurring opinions, several justices noted that they could reconsider its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause doesn’t prohibit states from applying neutral laws of general applicability to bar actions motivated by religion.

That case eventually led to the enactment of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion, even if that burden stems from a neutral, generally applicable law.

Religious groups have long pushed to apply a strict test that would require the government to show that a neutral law of general applicability, if it burdens religion at all, is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also advocated in their concurring opinions for this “strict scrutiny” test to apply.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh indicated that the high court’s test for religious exemptions could be reconsidered, but this case didn’t present the proper vehicle.

Courts have also grappled with whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s exemptions apply to Title VII discrimination claims, which LGBT workers can now file—an issue the Supreme Court could one day take up.

“This is a court that is protective of free exercise of religious liberties,” Selendy & Gay’s Flugman said.

This article discusses the ending of Pixar’s Luca.

When director Enrico Casarosa says he didn’t intend to make Luca a gay romance, I believe him. The first trailers for the movie—about two boys, one more worldly than the other, growing closer while sharing swims and bike rides in the Italian countryside—invited some inevitable jokes about it being a kiddie Call Me by Your Name. And these jokes were only further encouraged by the fact that the new Pixar movie shares a name with that Oscar-winning queer romance’s director, Luca Guadagnino. But Casarosa has insisted that the movie’s central relationship is purely platonic. “I was really keen to talk about a friendship before girlfriends and boyfriends come in to complicate things,” he said at a press event. According to him, this coming-of-age story takes place in a “pre-puberty world.” The Call Me by Your Name-esque elements, he says, were based instead on his own experiences growing up with a childhood friend in Genoa. The name Luca, meanwhile, is surely another coincidence, since Luca is a very common Italian name.

OK, but isn’t it still a little bit gay? Even beyond the superficial similarities to Call Me By Your Name, it seems, at the very least, open to interpretation. There’s no doubt that Luca offers an allegory about identity, passing, and the way people fear others who are not like them. In this case, the two boys’ true identity just happens to be their hidden natures as sea monsters. The titular character, a young sea monster, disobeys his parents and ventures above the surface, where he forms a close relationship with fellow sea monster Alberto. They have their share of moments that could be easily interpreted as puppy love, such as when they’re stargazing with their arms around each other, and their secret time together is liberating for them. It’s also forbidden. When Luca’s mother finds out about it, she doesn’t understand, and she’s afraid for him. She threatens to send him further into the depths—away from land, but also from Alberto’s influence.

The two boys run away together to the nearby town, where they are again misunderstood and must hide their identities from the hostile townspeople. Luca wants to attend school, but, as Alberto reminds him, there will always be a risk of ostracization—even violence—if the others find out what he really is. Alberto is also jealous of Luca’s burgeoning relationship with a local girl, Giulia. And when Alberto comes out, so to speak, as his true self, he is stung by Luca’s choice to throw him under the bus and remain closeted. The movie’s climax arrives when Luca finally decides to stand with Alberto and reveal his own identity. This in turn sparks defenses from their allies (including Giulia), and sets off a domino effect in which other members of the provincial town, including a pair of older women, announce that they, too, are sea monsters.

As an allegory for the closet, it’s a messy one, to be sure, and the experience of hiding parts of your identity has never been exclusive to the LGBTQ community. In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, or gender identity, or immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, gender identity, immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

Still, there have been so many similar discussions about queer identity in Disney movies that you can almost predict the discourse ahead of time: “They’re gay!” “But why do they have to be gay? Isn’t it healthy to have a movie with two boys showing affection for each other without making it romantic?” “But why can’t they be gay?” It’s the same loop that played out with movies like Frozen and Brave. (“Why does a girl not wanting an arranged marriage mean she has to be a lesbian?” “Why shouldn’t she be a lesbian?” Repeat ad infinitum.)

Disney’s track record here doesn’t help matters. For both live-action and animated movies, the studio has overhyped what have become known as “exclusively gay moments,” tiny morsels of representation that are either so subtle you hardly notice them (a kiss between two women in the background of a Star Wars movie) or so plot-irrelevant that they can be easily chopped or overlooked by international censors (here’s looking at you, Endgame’s unnamed Grieving Man). Pixar at least seems to have learned a lesson about making too much of these moments: In Onward, an extremely minor character mentions having a girlfriend, but the character is still just that—extremely minor—even if the filmmakers were smart enough not to herald this development by tooting their own horns. Meanwhile, while Disney has congratulated itself and claimed to blaze new trails, plenty of other animation studios have been miles ahead of them: Laika’s ParaNorman, for example, featured an openly gay character way back in 2012.

Ironically, the Disney movie that gave us the term “exclusively gay moment” in the first place took a different tack: The live-action Beauty and the Beast’s LeFou is more in the spirit of the studio’s long-standing tradition of strongly queer-coded, if not explicitly gay, villains. Fans have since picked up on homoerotic undertones in Raya and the Last Dragon and the live-action Mulan, but these movies remain rainbow Rorschach tests, with audiences having to read between the lines or project their own meanings to find queer representation.

Luca seems firmly in this last tradition. How gay is it? Whatever the director’s stated intent, the answer seems to be: as gay as you want it to be. Are these two boys crushes? Are they friends? Can the movie be an allegory for coming out either way? All you can do is squint until something takes shape.

This article discusses the ending of Pixar’s Luca.

When director Enrico Casarosa says he didn’t intend to make Luca a gay romance, I believe him. The first trailers for the movie—about two boys, one more worldly than the other, growing closer while sharing swims and bike rides in the Italian countryside—invited some inevitable jokes about it being a kiddie Call Me by Your Name. And these jokes were only further encouraged by the fact that the new Pixar movie shares a name with that Oscar-winning queer romance’s director, Luca Guadagnino. But Casarosa has insisted that the movie’s central relationship is purely platonic. “I was really keen to talk about a friendship before girlfriends and boyfriends come in to complicate things,” he said at a press event. According to him, this coming-of-age story takes place in a “pre-puberty world.” The Call Me by Your Name-esque elements, he says, were based instead on his own experiences growing up with a childhood friend in Genoa. The name Luca, meanwhile, is surely another coincidence, since Luca is a very common Italian name.

OK, but isn’t it still a little bit gay? Even beyond the superficial similarities to Call Me By Your Name, it seems, at the very least, open to interpretation. There’s no doubt that Luca offers an allegory about identity, passing, and the way people fear others who are not like them. In this case, the two boys’ true identity just happens to be their hidden natures as sea monsters. The titular character, a young sea monster, disobeys his parents and ventures above the surface, where he forms a close relationship with fellow sea monster Alberto. They have their share of moments that could be easily interpreted as puppy love, such as when they’re stargazing with their arms around each other, and their secret time together is liberating for them. It’s also forbidden. When Luca’s mother finds out about it, she doesn’t understand, and she’s afraid for him. She threatens to send him further into the depths—away from land, but also from Alberto’s influence.

The two boys run away together to the nearby town, where they are again misunderstood and must hide their identities from the hostile townspeople. Luca wants to attend school, but, as Alberto reminds him, there will always be a risk of ostracization—even violence—if the others find out what he really is. Alberto is also jealous of Luca’s burgeoning relationship with a local girl, Giulia. And when Alberto comes out, so to speak, as his true self, he is stung by Luca’s choice to throw him under the bus and remain closeted. The movie’s climax arrives when Luca finally decides to stand with Alberto and reveal his own identity. This in turn sparks defenses from their allies (including Giulia), and sets off a domino effect in which other members of the provincial town, including a pair of older women, announce that they, too, are sea monsters.

As an allegory for the closet, it’s a messy one, to be sure, and the experience of hiding parts of your identity has never been exclusive to the LGBTQ community. In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, or gender identity, or immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, gender identity, immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

Still, there have been so many similar discussions about queer identity in Disney movies that you can almost predict the discourse ahead of time: “They’re gay!” “But why do they have to be gay? Isn’t it healthy to have a movie with two boys showing affection for each other without making it romantic?” “But why can’t they be gay?” It’s the same loop that played out with movies like Frozen and Brave. (“Why does a girl not wanting an arranged marriage mean she has to be a lesbian?” “Why shouldn’t she be a lesbian?” Repeat ad infinitum.)

Disney’s track record here doesn’t help matters. For both live-action and animated movies, the studio has overhyped what have become known as “exclusively gay moments,” tiny morsels of representation that are either so subtle you hardly notice them (a kiss between two women in the background of a Star Wars movie) or so plot-irrelevant that they can be easily chopped or overlooked by international censors (here’s looking at you, Endgame’s unnamed Grieving Man). Pixar at least seems to have learned a lesson about making too much of these moments: In Onward, an extremely minor character mentions having a girlfriend, but the character is still just that—extremely minor—even if the filmmakers were smart enough not to herald this development by tooting their own horns. Meanwhile, while Disney has congratulated itself and claimed to blaze new trails, plenty of other animation studios have been miles ahead of them: Laika’s ParaNorman, for example, featured an openly gay character way back in 2012.

Ironically, the Disney movie that gave us the term “exclusively gay moment” in the first place took a different tack: The live-action Beauty and the Beast’s LeFou is more in the spirit of the studio’s long-standing tradition of strongly queer-coded, if not explicitly gay, villains. Fans have since picked up on homoerotic undertones in Raya and the Last Dragon and the live-action Mulan, but these movies remain rainbow Rorschach tests, with audiences having to read between the lines or project their own meanings to find queer representation.

Luca seems firmly in this last tradition. How gay is it? Whatever the director’s stated intent, the answer seems to be: as gay as you want it to be. Are these two boys crushes? Are they friends? Can the movie be an allegory for coming out either way? All you can do is squint until something takes shape.

This article discusses the ending of Pixar’s Luca.

When director Enrico Casarosa says he didn’t intend to make Luca a gay romance, I believe him. The first trailers for the movie—about two boys, one more worldly than the other, growing closer while sharing swims and bike rides in the Italian countryside—invited some inevitable jokes about it being a kiddie Call Me by Your Name. And these jokes were only further encouraged by the fact that the new Pixar movie shares a name with that Oscar-winning queer romance’s director, Luca Guadagnino. But Casarosa has insisted that the movie’s central relationship is purely platonic. “I was really keen to talk about a friendship before girlfriends and boyfriends come in to complicate things,” he said at a press event. According to him, this coming-of-age story takes place in a “pre-puberty world.” The Call Me by Your Name-esque elements, he says, were based instead on his own experiences growing up with a childhood friend in Genoa. The name Luca, meanwhile, is surely another coincidence, since Luca is a very common Italian name.

OK, but isn’t it still a little bit gay? Even beyond the superficial similarities to Call Me By Your Name, it seems, at the very least, open to interpretation. There’s no doubt that Luca offers an allegory about identity, passing, and the way people fear others who are not like them. In this case, the two boys’ true identity just happens to be their hidden natures as sea monsters. The titular character, a young sea monster, disobeys his parents and ventures above the surface, where he forms a close relationship with fellow sea monster Alberto. They have their share of moments that could be easily interpreted as puppy love, such as when they’re stargazing with their arms around each other, and their secret time together is liberating for them. It’s also forbidden. When Luca’s mother finds out about it, she doesn’t understand, and she’s afraid for him. She threatens to send him further into the depths—away from land, but also from Alberto’s influence.

The two boys run away together to the nearby town, where they are again misunderstood and must hide their identities from the hostile townspeople. Luca wants to attend school, but, as Alberto reminds him, there will always be a risk of ostracization—even violence—if the others find out what he really is. Alberto is also jealous of Luca’s burgeoning relationship with a local girl, Giulia. And when Alberto comes out, so to speak, as his true self, he is stung by Luca’s choice to throw him under the bus and remain closeted. The movie’s climax arrives when Luca finally decides to stand with Alberto and reveal his own identity. This in turn sparks defenses from their allies (including Giulia), and sets off a domino effect in which other members of the provincial town, including a pair of older women, announce that they, too, are sea monsters.

As an allegory for the closet, it’s a messy one, to be sure, and the experience of hiding parts of your identity has never been exclusive to the LGBTQ community. In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, or gender identity, or immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

In the eyes of some viewers, the movie may come across an allegory not about sexuality but about race, gender identity, immigration status, or simply feeling out of place.

Still, there have been so many similar discussions about queer identity in Disney movies that you can almost predict the discourse ahead of time: “They’re gay!” “But why do they have to be gay? Isn’t it healthy to have a movie with two boys showing affection for each other without making it romantic?” “But why can’t they be gay?” It’s the same loop that played out with movies like Frozen and Brave. (“Why does a girl not wanting an arranged marriage mean she has to be a lesbian?” “Why shouldn’t she be a lesbian?” Repeat ad infinitum.)

Disney’s track record here doesn’t help matters. For both live-action and animated movies, the studio has overhyped what have become known as “exclusively gay moments,” tiny morsels of representation that are either so subtle you hardly notice them (a kiss between two women in the background of a Star Wars movie) or so plot-irrelevant that they can be easily chopped or overlooked by international censors (here’s looking at you, Endgame’s unnamed Grieving Man). Pixar at least seems to have learned a lesson about making too much of these moments: In Onward, an extremely minor character mentions having a girlfriend, but the character is still just that—extremely minor—even if the filmmakers were smart enough not to herald this development by tooting their own horns. Meanwhile, while Disney has congratulated itself and claimed to blaze new trails, plenty of other animation studios have been miles ahead of them: Laika’s ParaNorman, for example, featured an openly gay character way back in 2012.

Ironically, the Disney movie that gave us the term “exclusively gay moment” in the first place took a different tack: The live-action Beauty and the Beast’s LeFou is more in the spirit of the studio’s long-standing tradition of strongly queer-coded, if not explicitly gay, villains. Fans have since picked up on homoerotic undertones in Raya and the Last Dragon and the live-action Mulan, but these movies remain rainbow Rorschach tests, with audiences having to read between the lines or project their own meanings to find queer representation.

Luca seems firmly in this last tradition. How gay is it? Whatever the director’s stated intent, the answer seems to be: as gay as you want it to be. Are these two boys crushes? Are they friends? Can the movie be an allegory for coming out either way? All you can do is squint until something takes shape.

Researchers have spoken and they confirm the fact that gay relationships can be happier than hetero coupling. This may come as a surprise to you. Social stereotypes often portray gay relationships as fickle, dysfunctional and even unhappy.

Needless to say, building a stable relationship requires some work. It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. Trust, communication and compromise will always be required to have a harmonious relationship with a special someone.

If you’re struggling a bit and you don’t know how to boost happiness in your relationship, the following guide will give you some practical tips. Don’t hesitate to address whatever isn’t working right now. The sooner you do it, the stronger your relationship will grow.

Healthy boundaries come first

Boundaries are universally important, whether you’re in a gay or a straight relationship.

Both of you should be on the same page as far as what’s permissible and what isn’t. Having a discussion about boundaries doesn’t limit self-expression and opportunities for happiness and spontaneity. On the contrary—boundaries create a healthy framework within which you can explore each other safely.

Many people think that boundaries pertain solely to sex but this isn’t the case.

Other important issues you’ll need to talk about include lifestyle, monogamy, problem solving and even finances. Chances are that you have different views on these important topics and you’ll have to work together to reach a mutually-beneficial solution.

Learn how to conquer the hard moments

Are you one of the people eager to get out when the going gets tough? If so, you could be missing on an opportunity to have something stable and exciting in your life. It’s essential to learn how to deal with the difficult moments.

If you find a way to make that happen, you’ll be rewarded in the end. Studies suggest that older gay adults who are married tend to be healthier and happier than singles.

Understand the fact that a happy gay relationship is not a conflict-free relationship. On the contrary, conflict gives you a chance to learn something new and to address situations in a constructive way. If you manage to do so, you’ll emerge much stronger on the other side.

Conflict resolution and handling difficulties is all about communication. And communication itself is about speaking and about active listening. Learning to put yourself in the other person’s shoes will reveal a side of the story you could have completely ignored before. So, try to keep an open mind and be patient. Don’t make emotional or angry decisions. Giving yourself some time to process and come up with a rational resolution will typically result in an issue that’s fairly easy to overcome.

Work on making your sex life better

Unless you’re asexual, passion and amazing sex will play a role in keeping your relationship strong. For many gay couples, it’s the glue that holds two people together.

Sex is often naturally great in the beginning of the relationship. As time goes by, however, the passion and novelty will subside. Unless you’re willing to undertake a proactive approach, sex can even get boring in a few years. If you’re committed to happiness, do focus on maintaining some amazing sex life.

Once again, this is dependent on good communication and getting to know each other well.

A willingness to try out new things and share fantasies will also contribute to higher levels of satisfaction. Don’t be afraid of bringing up the subject of using sex toys like a double dildo or playing out a fantasy. Chances are that your partner will be pretty receptive of such an idea.

Learn to respect and value your differences

Have you entered a relationship with the ambition to eventually change your partner and turn them into a “better” person? If so, you’re in for a major failure.

It’s not your job to transform someone and if that’s your mission, chances are that the relationship will fail sooner or later. Instead of trying to do a makeover, focus on respecting your differences. Your version of a better person isn’t necessarily the right one. You aren’t meant to be changing others. If you cannot accept your partner for who they are, chances are that you’re not a good pairing.

Differences are the salt of the earth and they make relationships exciting. Learning to value your partner’s uniqueness can actually make your relationship much more diversified and stable. There’s a reason why the saying opposites attract exists. As clichéd as it is, this saying does hold some validity.

Find a strong and supportive community

LGBTQ couples can often feel left out and socially-isolated. This social vacuum can be problematic, creating additional relationship challenges that straight people don’t have to face. Having a loving and supportive extended family is obviously great but if you don’t, you’ll need to do something about it.

Try to work things out with your family as a first step. You could be worried about rejection or them disapproving of your partner. Still, keeping an open mind and trying to communicate the specifics of the situation may turn the situation around.

In the event of actually being rejected, you’ll need to work on a different kind of support system. Friends, mentors and counselors can all contribute to your life. Make use of opportunities to enrich yourself, to get assistance and to communicate with someone understanding and empathetic. Such a support network would make it much easier to address challenges whenever these arise in your relationship.

The same applies to your partner. Try to maintain a good relationship with their family. If that isn’t possible, get them involved in your social circle and try to establish a new one.

A final essential step to mention is a focus on safety. The world has become more accepting of gay relationships than ever before but bigotry still exists.

So, should you be holding hands while walking on the street or kissing your partner in public? That’s really up to you. Just be mindful of the surroundings and don’t underestimate risks. If you manage to assess situations rationally, you’ll get to enjoy a lot of safety and a chance to be your genuine self without a worry in the world.

This article is a guest post by Aydoan Armutlu

He announced he would leave the priesthood altogether, and then spent four years, as he put it, in the wilderness. He had a “double coming out” to his parents, about leaving the priesthood and being gay, and they didn’t talk to him for years. He bumped into priests he knew at cruising spots and various bathhouses, including one in a building owned by the Vatican. He said he went to drug-fueled parties at the Abbey of Montecassino, which traces its roots back to St. Benedict. He earned some money with private lessons in Latin and religion and some initial reporting jobs, but he felt lost.

In 2013, a Cardinal delivered a letter from Mr. Lepore explaining his situation to the newly elected Pope Francis. In October, Mr. Lepore’s phone rang, with Francis telling him he admired him for his “consistency” and “courage” in not living a double life, and that he wanted to help him with his economic travails, according to Mr. Lepore.

(A Vatican spokesman did not return a call for comment.)

But except for an envelope with 2,000 euros, about $2,400, from another Cardinal (“a kindness”), no job ever materialized. Francis signed his dispensation papers in August 2014, removing him from the clerical state.

Free from the church, Mr. Lepore threw himself into activism for gay rights. In February 2019 he became the star witness of Frédéric Martel’s buzzy book “In the Closet of the Vatican,” where Mr. Lepore’s estimate that 80 percent of the Vatican staff are gay made a splash.

Later that year, Ivan Scalfarotto, a politician who is now an undersecretary in Italy’s Interior Ministry, told the new editor of Linkiesta about a guy who knew everything about the Vatican. The editor, Christian Rocca, was intrigued. Mr. Lepore sent him an article about the Vatican’s dim view of the suddenly pious turn of the nationalist leader Matteo Salvini. Mr. Rocca sent it to a Vatican official he knew who assured him it was spot on.

“I discovered this gem,” Mr. Rocca said.

Last year Mr. Rocca floated the idea of a daily column in Latin, which he admitted was not great for search engine optimization, but seemed like it might be fun.

“It seems like madness,” Mr. Lepore responded.

And then he immediately got to it.

BUDAPEST, June 18 (Reuters) – Daniella Milla Tokodi says she feels finally free as she dances in spectacular costumes in a drag queen show at a Budapest bar popular with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

The 31-year old Hungarian said she had known she was gay from when she was a young boy. Following final surgery in 2018 transforming her from a man to a woman, she said she broke into tears when she saw herself in the mirror and finally felt happy in her “soul and body”.

“It was a relief … Since then I am able to look into people’s eyes. I can communicate with people, I feel whole.”

That feeling is now overshadowed by worry over a string of laws passed by Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s right-wing government that critics say undermine LGBT+ rights, with the latest this week that bans the “display and promotion” of homosexuality and gender change among under-18s, in schools and in the media.

It follows another law last year banning gender change in identity documents, something Daniella was able to do after she started her transition in 2014.

“I am obviously concerned by it and how the next generation will grow up. It is not by chance that there are a lot of gay, transgender suicides because if someone cannot become fulfilled what can they do? Should they hide?,” Daniella said.

A survey of 2,000 people by the HATTER society, a Hungarian LGBT+ group, showed that 42% thought about suicide while 30% had attempted it. Suicide thoughts occurred mostly among teenagers, about 64% of respondents, it said.

Orban defended the new legislation on Thursday, writing on his website in English that it “does not conflict with any lofty ideals or European laws. The new Hungarian law simply states clearly that only parents can decide on the sexual education of their children”.

His critics say Orban, who faces an election next year, has grown increasingly radical on social policy, railing against LGBTQ+ people and immigrants, which has deeply divided Hungarians and upset the LGBT+ community.

“HUGE TABOO”

Orban’s Fidesz party, which promotes a Christian-conservative agenda, tacked the proposal banning school talks on LGBT+ issues to a separate, widely-backed bill that strictly penalises paedophilia.

The move, which critics say wrongly conflates paedophilia with LGBT+ issues, prompted a mass rally on Monday, while rights groups have called on Fidesz to withdraw the bill and the European Commission has opened an inquiry into it.

The new law also sets up a list of organisations allowed to provide education about sex in schools.

Drag queen “Elona Musk”, who did not want to use his real name, has worked in a volunteer group that visits schools to educate children about diversity.

Elona himself had a tough time in high school, feeling that he had to hide that he was gay. He grew up in Romania where he said homosexuality was a “huge taboo”.

He moved to Hungary from Transylvania 10 years ago and in his day job, he works for a multinational company. The new law scares him as he fears he will not be able to continue his volunteer work.

“I think this is just one step and it will continue with new and new laws.”

Critics have likened the new legislation to Russia’s 2013 law that bans disseminating “propaganda on non-traditional sexual relations” among young Russians.

It also affects the LGBT+ community’s main media outlet, Humen magazine and online news portal.

Its editor Zsolt Erdei says it is still unclear whether they will be able to display their free printed magazine in public places. The online version will have to be preceded by an age 18 warning.

PEOPLE BELIEVE Many things, some are wise and some are not. English law considers it the right to retain and express those beliefs for good reason. In recent years, the court has ruled that catastrophic climate change, ethical veganism, and beliefs in “the ability to communicate with the spirit through media” are all “respectable in a democratic society.” In 2019, the referee considered something else. In other words, “there are only two genders, male and female.”

The plaintiff is Maya Forstayer, a tax expert, who lost her job at an American think tank after tweeting about her beliefs. She summarized them as follows: Men are adult men, and “gender does not change.” These beliefs were recognized by employment referees as “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” On June 10, the ruling was overturned.

The decision is important to both Ms. Fourstayer and Stonewall, a large campaign charity. Being transgender identifies you as something other than the gender of your birth and “does not have (or does not have) a particular body part” but “absolutely transgender identity. It’s the core, something that doesn’t change. ” There is. ” It describes another view as “transphobia”.

Stonewall promotes this doctrine, widely known as “gender self-identification,” through the Diversity Champions scheme. NHS Trust, MI6, the military and the Ministry of Interior have signed up for. The business model of the scheme is simple. Companies give money to Stonewall. Stonewall ensures that the policy is in line with the idea and badges it as diverse and comprehensive. One of the founders of the charity and now a critic, Simon Fanshaw believes that employers like it, at least in part. ..

However, the result was contrary to freedom of religion and speech in the workplace. Naomi Cunningham, an employment barrister and co-founder of the campaign group Fourstayer of Sex Matters, has decided that all major institutions must practice Catholicism for everyone. It seems. “And suddenly, the rest of us woke up and realized that we were under theocracy. [that] Everyone has to pay for lip service. She suggests that Stonewall’s claim that transubstantiation is not a physical issue reflects Catholic belief in transubstantiation. Men “may hold a man’s accident, but in essence it’s a woman’s accident.”

There are some signs that confidence in Stonewall may be beginning to decline. In May, the official body, the Commission on Human Rights, announced that it would withdraw from the Diversity Champions scheme. Other large organizations are gone, and Liz Truss, Minister for Women and Equality, says all government agencies should.In the article Times In May, Matthew Parris, another co-founder of Stonewall, said, “Stonewall got lost.” He asked what it was doing, involved in an attempt to suppress freedom of speech.

Fanshaw believes the Stonewall tragedy is part of a wider range of malaise in political debate. He points out that a recent ruling upheld Ms. Fourstayer’s right to her beliefs, as well as the right of others to believe in the superiority of gender identity over biological sex. True inclusion means “building a very broad alliance.” Instead of doing it like a stone wall, he says, “I’m sitting in the corner of the room with a bag on my head that shouts” bigot “to people.” ■■

Editor’s Note: Earlier versions of this article mistakenly described Maya Forstater as a “defendant.” We apologize for the error.

This article was published in the UK section of the print version under the heading “Stone walling”.

The NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project, a local nonprofit advocating for recognition of historic buildings with queer pasts, lists the Stonewall Inn on its interactive map of LGBTQ+ sites in the city — along with over 350 additional, though perhaps lesser-known, sites of significance.

“The goal of the project is to broaden people’s knowledge of the city’s LGBT history, beyond the globally-recognized Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village,” Project Manager Amanda Davis said during an online panel hosted by the Preservation League of New York State last Thursday. “And in doing so, help push the conversation forward in rethinking how we interpret historic sites.”

At last week’s event, Davis was joined by historic preservation consultant Jeffrey “Free” Harris and Jeffry Iovannone, who spotlights LGBTQ+ landmarks in a blog series for Preservation Buffalo Niagara, for brief presentations and a conversation moderated by Larry Francer, the associate director of the Landmark Society of Western New York. The panelists addressed the unique hurdles of nominating sites for formal recognition based specifically on their LGBTQ+-related histories, but also spoke to the impact that such designations hold for the queer community.

Davis, Harris and Iovannone presented detailed information on a selection of LGBTQ+ sites in New York, most already bearing landmark status. For a building to be nationally recognized as a landmark, it must be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. The Stonewall Inn, Davis explained, was the first building in the U.S. to be recognized as a landmark for its significance as a site of LGBTQ+ history. Now, ten such sites in the city are similarly recognized by the state and national registers.

Trials and Tribulations

In addition to outlining the NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project’s mission, Davis also dove into the challenges facing those who wish to register buildings as landmarks for their roles in LGBTQ+ history. The group, led by historians with ties to Columbia University, has penned a “historic context statement” for New York City to help situate individual sites within a broader history of queer culture in an effort to make the process of reviewing a building for landmark status more straightforward. Still, other hurdles persist.

“Owner consent is needed for a property to be listed on the National Register … and this can be a challenge when an owner doesn’t want to be associated with LGBT history,” Davis said.

Davis also mentioned that convincingly “identifying” historic figures as part of the LGBTQ+ community can prove difficult.

Beyond locating new sites for historic landmark recognition, Davis and others acknowledged that in some cases, pre-existing landmark listings must be amended to include reference to sites’ LGBTQ+ pasts, which may have originally been neglected. “History is not fixed,” Davis said. “We can go back in time and re-evaluate and include narratives that were left out.”

In other cases, sites of LGBTQ+ importance are in jeopardy of ceasing to exist altogether. “A lot of our sites are located in places that usually go through a great deal of change, neighborhoods that change,” explained Harris, whose presentation focused on African American LGBTQ+ historical sites. “They’re in areas that, you know, over time we see that they are gentrified or they’re torn down.”

In Western New York, there are currently no landmarks recognized exclusively for their ties to LGBTQ+ historical figures or events by the National Register of Historic Places — a reality which Iovannone hopes to soon change.

Underscoring LGBTQ+ Stories

The mission of Preservation Buffalo Niagara’s “Gay Places” initiative, which Iovannone cofounded in 2020, is not only to commemorate LGBTQ+ sites in Western New York, but also to shift the narrative that queer history is rooted solely in hotspots on either coast of the country.

“If we have sites in places like Buffalo or Rochester, right, that are listed on the National Register and have that sort of prestige and authenticity,” he explained, “it makes it much more, I think, difficult to ignore what happened outside of large cities on the coast.”

In addition to crafting blog posts that dive into LGBTQ+ history in the area and hosting informational events, Iovannone also broke ground on nominating the former home of transgender activist Peggie Ames, located in Clarence, New York, for landmark status with the National Register of Historic Places.

Presentations acknowledged that sites with LGBTQ+ significance can be appreciated even without official landmark status, especially through events that engage the local community, like walking tours. Still, Davis, Harris and Iovannone agreed that landmark status is a valuable way to recognize and legitimize the community’s history.

“There’s no question in my mind,” Harris said, “that the honorific of a National Register listing is important to people.”