• Well this is ... weird? A gospel singer and preacher named Tonex has a song out that contains lyrics that some people think indicate that he's coming out as gay. What, "This Little Light of Mine" isn't good enough anymore? BTW, NSFW.
  
• The voting is getting scary close on As the World Turns' Luke/Noah relationship poll. Don't let the homophobes win. Vote now!
• The ever-scooptacular Michael Ausiello talked up Jeremy Piven at the Entourage premiere, and Piven said of his toxic character Ari: "He will prove himself to be the biggest homophobe and the biggest friend to the gay man in the history of humanity." Um ... wow!
• Mariah Carey to perform at Disney's One Mighty Party gay event ... at Paris's Euro Disney park. Chances are, everyone will look either gay or European.
• Isaiah Washington compares himself to Malcolm X and Paul Robeson. Yeah -- remember when Malcolm X called Fidel Castro a "faggot" in 1960? No? Well, that's because it never happened. Moving on...
• Queerty.com asks "Is Gay Pride Even Relevant Anymore?" We're so ashamed.
  
• NewNowNext wants your vote for the Ultimate Queer Videos. And I don't think they mean Reverend Ted Haggard's.
• Meet retired Broadway dancer Michael Vita who is doing all kinds of good works.

Interesting article in the Guardian Unilimited looking at how the issue of civil unions have settled out in the UK now that they've been legal for eighteen months. The writer, Paul Flynn, is surprised at how easy the transition has been. As proof he cites the fact that John Barrowman's (that's him in his wedding kilt) nuptials were featured in OK! Magazine which is apparently the official British seal of mainstream acceptance. Sort of like People Magazine in the US I guess.

Part of the reason for the easy acceptance? According to Flynn, it has at least something to do with the union of Elton John and David Furnish and the huge public fanfare that accompanied it. The idea being that treating their big day just like Tom and Nicole, or Tom and Kate, or Tom and whoever comes next, normalizes the idea for the average Joe. I suspect there is truth in that, although it could also be seen as something only radical elites, rich folks, and eccentrics do unless the gay guys next door also exchange vows. And that, says Flynn, might not be the case.

He himself feels a little ambivalent about the acceptance from his heterosexual counterparts and wonders if the GLBT community isn't giving up some of its uniqueness and identity. Says Flynn:

I still know of people who talk with nostalgia of their connection of kinship with "the gay community" pre-legalisation. Where once I would have thought this reactionary, now I know what it feels like to have something you had struggled to have taken seriously become a statutory norm. It undermines your own story.

Interesting thoughts, but there is no going back and, not to state the obvious, change is the one thing that can't be stopped. Barrowman's being on the cover of OK! might not be the height of cultural achievement, but I'm glad for it nonetheless if helps further our cause. I look forward the first People Magazine cover featuring a gay couple getting hitched.

Last week Turbine, Inc. of Westwood, MA released a new online role-playing game based on J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings called "The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar". Salon.com just posted a very interesting article over the controversy that erupted at the company over the issue of whether the game would allow same-sex marriage (the article also examines gay gaming issues in general). Ultimately, Turbine decided to completely remove the game's marriage feature rather than allow same-sex marriage. While it seems a silly decision, I prefer that over discriminating against gay folks who want to swap those Middle Earth Rings with each other.

We've written about gay-gaming issues before including the recent controversy over Bully's same-sex kiss. The issue here doesn't seem to be out right homophobia on the part of the game-designers. The article points out that one of the designers, Nik Davidson, is pro-gay in real life, but voted against including same-sex marriage in The Lord of the Rings. His (and others) reasoning? That since same-sex marriage wasn't in Tolkien's original creation, it couldn't be here as their goal was to be as authentic to his vision as possible. (Does this mean online role playing games were part of his vision?) As an example of sticking to Tolkien's game plan, the article cites how during beta testing they discovered a gray squirrel, a creature which Tolkien apparently abhorred. The color was promptly changed.

Last month I wrote an article about how Disney was keeping same-sex couples from celebrating their commitment ceremonies on their California and Florida properties--and consequently Reuters is now reporting that Disney will start allowing same-couples to participate in their Fairy Tale Wedding program. (Reuters even specifically cites our article.)

Said Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker, "We are updating our Fairy Tale Wedding guidelines to include commitment ceremonies. This is consistent with our policy of creating a welcoming, respectful and inclusive environment for all of our guests."

When I first contacted Disney about this situation, they basically argued that since neither Florida nor California recognize same-sex marriage, Disney's hands were tied and they couldn't offer their services to gay and lesbian couples. This wasn't true, but it was Disney's argument.

The legal situation was slightly different in California where same-sex couples were allowed to celebrate their commitment ceremonies on Disney properties, but not using the same planners as straight couples nor could they use the Rose Court Garden which was strictly reserved for heterosexuals.

So what prompted the change? Walker said it was because of a "an inquiry from a guest that asked about this service." Walker then said he had to go have lunch with Tinker Bell and Goofy.

(Click read more to learn the rest of what happened.)