2 GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE

•

January 30, 2009 www.GayPeoplesChronicle.com

Race, sexual orientation explored in 'fishbowl' forum

by Anthony Glassman

Cleveland-After Califonia voters passed Proposition 8, repealing gay and

community was perceived as being homophobic, and what those perceptions meant to people who were part of both communities.

ANTHONY GLASSMAN

Kevin Calhoun, left, and Bruce Menapace oversee the changing of the group in the "fishbowl" at a January 25 forum on race and sexual orientation.

lesbian couples' constitutionally-protected right to marry there, facts and figures about the measure's support in the black and Latino communities flew at a startling pace.

Coming out of that, People of All Colors Together-Cleveland, the Cleveland LGBT Center and the Ase in Our Hands Coalition wanted to know how people in northeast Ohio felt about the interplay between race and sexual orientation, whether the black

Around 20 people attended a discussion on the issue on January 25 at Archwood United Church of Christ. PACT's co-chair Kevin Calhoun and member Bruce Menapace facilitated the discussion, which was held in a "fishbowl" format.

Chairs were set up around a central table, with a larger ring of chairs around that.

For the first part, white attendees sat around the table while the people of color

occupied the outer circle. Those at the table then discussed their thoughts on five questions.

After that discussion ended, the two groups switched places, with the black attendees talking about their opinions and experiences, while the white people listened.

Everyone then returned to the outer circle of chairs for a discussion among the group as a whole.

The five questions were:

What do you think are the best ways to nurture collaboration between whites and people of color in regards to anti-LGBT discrimination?

• To fight for gay rights, do you also have to fight for the rights of people of color? • How important is gay marriage to you? • What are the challenges that Proposition 8 has brought to light?

With much of the black churchwhich has considerable political power in Cleveland's black community-lukewarm at best towards gay, how does one advance gay rights in Cleveland's black community and create support for black LGBT people?

That final question was especially appropriate given the efforts of a group of local pastors to repeal the city's newlyminted domestic partner registry.

In an interview two days after the event, Calhoun was impressed with the level of discourse at the forum.

"I think one of the key things that was brought up was the concept of a trust deficit when it came to relations between the overall LGBT community and communities of color when it came to collaborations," he said. "That was one of the key points that was widely agreed upon by everyone there, and it was actually something surprising."

"When people were coming up with their various opinions and thoughts, issues of multicultural competence came up: How does one interact with another group of people in terms of body language, speaking style, in terms of perceptions of intent," he continued.

He pointed to the perception that "mainstream" LGBT organizations, largely white, will plan an event or a program without building relationships with those who might attend or make use of it. The perception, conversely, is that African American LGBT organizations act more cooperatively.

That perception might also lie behind some of the criticism of the handling of the Prop. 8 opponents' campaign, which did little to reach out to black and Latino LGBT people.

"I think they went under the assumption that these groups were with them by default, and that's not the case," Calhoun noted.

"One of the challenges involving the black LGBT community in terms of the registry is the educational piece, getting the information out," he continued, turning the conversation back to a local focus. He also stressed the importance of both black and white LGBT people working together to help "develop the black LGBT leadership, at least being to develop partnerships with the different people, because there are a lot of people that the Center and these other organizations didn't know existed before the registry. I think it's the responsibility of old and new LGBT leaders in the black community to reach out to people in the black community."

"We would actually strengthen not just our positions in the LGBT community, but strengthen our positions in the greater Cleveland community as a whole," he concluded.

Hey Diddle Dittle

Budia

Marie Davis' breakout novel, Hey Diddle Diddle: A Naughty Delight for Lesbians and Other Grownups. is the fanciful tale of handywoman Lil and her favorite spoon. Together they spend evenings eating ice cream and sharing wishes. Unexpectedly, a beautiful

seductress appears on

the scene... Therein lies the funniest, most fanciful, over-the-

top tale of sex and obsession. You'll enjoy this naughty delight narrated by the author.

www.motesbooks.com

Mom wants ban used to keep ex from kids

by Eric Resnick

Cleveland-Less than a month after the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that the state's marriage ban amendment has no bearing on a child custody plan, another biological mother is trying to use the ban to keep her former partner out of their children's lives.

Siobhan LaPiana is appealing an August ruling by the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, which upheld a shared custody and visitation agreement with her former partner Rita Goodman. She is asking the Eighth District Court of Appeals to overturn the plan, created before their two children were born.

On January 5, the Ohio Supreme Court turned away an appeal of a unanimous Tenth District Court of Appeals decision that said the state's 2004 constitutional marriage ban doesn't affect parenting agreements. Chief Justice Thomas Moyer dismissed the appeal as "not involving any substantial constitutional question."

That case involved a Columbus-area former couple, Denise Marie Fairchild and Therese Marie Leach, who split up six months after signing a shared parenting agreement. Fairchild, the biological mother, could not get courts to invalidate the pact.

LaPiana's arguments are similar to Fairchild's. Should the Eighth District rule in LaPiana's favor, it could cause a split between the district courts, forcing the Ohio Supreme Court to reconsider the ban's effect on parenting agreements.

LaPiana's attorney, Katherine A. Friedell of Cleveland, said the Ohio justices didn't take the Fairchild case because their appeal should have been done differently. She also believes LaPiana's case is different factually from Fairchild's.

Goodman is represented by Cleveland attorney Pamela MacAdams and by the gay and lesbian Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Lambda attorney Camilla

Taylor wrote Goodman's brief, which was filed January 20.

LaPiana and Goodman, both college professors living in Cleveland Heights, were together from 1991 to 2001.

Through family planning and anonymous artificial insemination, the couple had two sons, who are now 8 and 11 years old.

According to court documents, the couple decided that LaPiana, who is eight years younger, would be the biological mother; and that the sperm donor was, like Goodman, Jewish and of Russian and Polish ancestry.

LaPiana and Goodman shared the cost of the procedure and took Goodman's last name. Theis sons were named after members of Goodman's family.

Before their first son was born in 1997, the women created a joint parenting agreement that shared family and household responsibilities, and also gave Goodman equal power over medical decisions for the children.

Goodman was named guardian in LaPiana's will, and the women had joint financial responsibility for the children. Goodman was "Mommy," and LaPiana was "Momma." Goodman's parents were "Grandma" and "Grampa."

The agreement also has provisions in case the couple split up, including that the parties would "do our best to see that our child maintains a close and loving relationship with each of us" despite the separation, that they would "share in our child's upbringing" and support, "make a good faith effort to jointly make all major decisions affecting our child's health and welfare," and that "the person who has actual physical custody will take all steps necessary to maximize the other's visitation and help make visitation as easy as possible."

After they separated, the women lived a few blocks apart while the children visited

between the two.

In 2006, LaPiana moved in with a new boyfriend, told Goodman she would cut her out of the boys' lives, and had a court change the childrens' last names to LaPiana without informing Goodman.

Goodman was no longer allowed to call the boyfriend's house.

Goodman asked the Juvenile Court to establish her rights of contact with the boys and her shared parenting in February, 2007, which it did.

The court appointed a guardian ad litem to advocate for the boys, and he supports Goodman's involvement.

LaPiana says Goodman has a "controlling" personality and that she was under duress when she signed the parenting agreement, the medical power papers and her will.

The juvenile court rejected LaPiana's claims, but named her the "residential parent" with authority to determine matters of religion, physician selection, medical treatment, and school selection.

Goodman was granted the right to attend school functions, visitation every other weekend and for one evening a week, and three uninterrupted weeks of summer visitation, among other things.

LaPiana says the Juvenile Court had no right to interfere with her parental rights without a declaration that she is unfit, that no Ohio law grants standing for Goodman to assert parental rights, that the court had no right to appoint a guardian ad litem, and that granting Goodman rights violates LaPiana's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the marriage ban amendment to the Ohio Constitution.

In a 2002 case called In re Bonfield, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that parenting and custody agreements between same-sex parents are constitutional and enforceable.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals is expected to hear this case and issue a ruling later this year.