Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:08:56 -0500 From: Jim Fagelson Subject: Parents Network December 14, 1997 GLPCI PARENTS' NETWORK December 14, 1997 a publication of the Gay and Lesbian Parents Coalition International THE POLLS ARE ACTIVE Go to the following Women's wire site to answer the questions "Do you have anyone gay in your family?" and "Do you think that gay marriage should be legalized?" There is even a chance to have your comments placed on-line. http://more.women.com/news/backtalkForm.html The Christian Science Monitor has a poll that they are taking that asks "Should states ban gay and lesbian couples from adopting children?" As of December 11, 1997 the poll shopwed 43.2% in favor of such a ban while 56.8% do not favor a ban. Register your vote. http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/12/03/us/us.2.html FROM HRC POLLING ON FAMILY MATTERS More than ever, gay and lesbian Americans are having families with children, who become part of these families in many ways. Institutions on the extreme right try to frame gay family issues only in terms of adoption, where there is a perception that gay men and lesbians are vulnerable. New research shows that even on that topic, there are key messages that resonate with the country. "The issue of adoption is best decided by parents and professionals on a case-by-case basis, not by politicians or the government." So say the American people, according to a public opinion survey conducted in August by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. In this groundbreaking study of 812 registered voters across the United States, we found Americans do not want to see Congress, state legislatures or bureaucrats making broad rules and regulations about who should and should not be able to adopt children. Support for single gay adoption tends to be higher among: Women (45 percent), Younger voters, age 18-34 (47 percent), Those making less than $35,000 per year (48 percent), City and suburban residents (47 percent), Democrats (52 percent), and Independents (46 percent) . Americans categorically reject the notion that the government should take a greater role in deciding who can and cannot adopt children, with 74 percent saying we should keep the system we currently have, rather than allow the government to take a greater role (19 percent). More than three-quarters of voters (78 percent) believe that the issue of gay men and lesbians adopting children should be decided on a case-by-case basis rather than by the federal (10 percent) or state (8 percent) government. And nearly four in five (79 percent) think the issue of gays and lesbians adopting children should be decided by parents and professionals rather than by judges (9 percent) or politicians (3 percent). Voters do not want to make adoptions by single gays and lesbians illegal. More than half (55 percent) would oppose a law that would prevent gay men or lesbians from adopting children, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) oppose making joint adoption among gay and lesbian couples illegal. Fundamentally, Americans do not see the issue of gay adoption as a "rights" issue. In fact, by a margin of five to one, voters overwhelmingly tell us that adoption is not a right (19 percent) at all but a privilege (81 percent). Thus, the issue is not one of comparing heterosexuals' "right" to adopt children to homosexuals' "right"- few Americans believe that such a right exists. For either side to view this battle as a rights issue completely misses the point. Instead, voters are looking for a rational discussion about parenting skills and the best interests of the child, not an emotional debate over sexual orientation. The majority of Americans believe that prospective parents should be judged more on their parenting skills than on their sexual orientation. Nearly three in five voters (59 percent) say that people should not be disqualified from becoming parents solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, and 54 percent think that sexual orientation should not be the primary factor in deciding if a person is fit to be a parent. In fact, only one in three (34 percent) cite sexual orientation as "extremely important" in deciding whether or not a person is a fit parent, the same percentage who cited "financial security." Moreover, voters reject the notion that gays cannot be good parents. A total of 52 percent strongly agree that gays and lesbians can be just as good parents as heterosexuals, and 56 percent believe gay men and lesbians should be allowed to be parents. But as we have seen before with issues involving gays and lesbians, opinions are fluid and subject to shift by providing people with true information or, conversely, by appealing to their fears, misconceptions and homophobia. In discussing this issue, the gay and lesbian community should stick to the facts, and avoid the polarizing rhetoric of "rights," however justified, that has consumed so many recent efforts. When the issue of gay adoption arises, gays and lesbians and their supporters must clearly and calmly demonstrate the facts of the matter to the community at large - particularly the tens of millions of married couples living in the suburbs raising kids of their own. By communicating these points in the short term, the gay and lesbian community has an excellent opportunity to build support for adoption. But the data strongly suggest that the real key to acceptance and equality lies in educating the public about what it's really like to be gay. We asked a series of questions concerning people's general beliefs about gays and lesbians and then examined the effect of these opinions on support for gay adoption. The finding is overwhelmingly clear: Americans who are better informed and have a more accurate picture of lesbians and gays generally are far more likely to be supportive. Thus, it becomes increasingly clear that in addition to meeting today's challenges - whether it be adoption, employment discrimination or hate crimes - gays and lesbians as individuals and as a community must recommit themselves to dispelling the long-running myths and misconceptions about what it is to be gay or lesbian. It is only through such a long-term educational effort - friend to friend, neighbor to neighbor, parent to parent - that gays and lesbians will achieve true equality. THE FACTS OF THE MATTER * Today, more than 500,000 children living in foster care or institutions need loving homes. * Numerous studies have shown gay and lesbian parents possess just as good parenting skills as heterosexual parents. * Studies have shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are no more likely to grow up gay or lesbian than other children. * Studies by the American Psychological Association show that gay and lesbian parents provide good, loving homes for children. * Research reveals that children adopted by homosexual parents lead just as healthy and productive lives as children adopted by heterosexual parents. * Single gay men and lesbians are becoming parents through adoption in 48 out of the 50 states. And second parent adoption: * Ensures that the adopted child can receive health benefits from both of his or her parents. * Gives the child greater financial security. * Increases stability in the child's life by establishing a legal relationship between the child and his or her parents. MARRIAGE IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund wants to thank many of you for your help in getting a huge surge of prominent individuals to endorse the Marriage Resolution in the past few months. And LLDEF hopes for an sdditional push to get more signatures (and discussion) in the next ten days or so, before the holidays shut everything down for the rest of the year. A select list of Marriage Resolution signatories so far is attached. Hard copies are available for circulation to others, as many as you can! The National Freedom to Marry Coalition has designated this coming February 12 National Freedom to Marry Day, tapping into Valentine's Day and Lincoln's Birthday to send a message to the non-gay public about our fight for love and equality, the freedom to marry. The plan is to use the weeks between now and then to collect as many signatories, engender as much public discussion, and shape public opinion as much as possible, building to that day (and D-Day, when we get the decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court). We hope to see activity on National Freedom to Marry Day in many communities across the country... and the outreach and organizing work building to that day in all fifty states. Websites: http://www.freedomtomarry.org, http://www.lambdalegal.org _________________________________________________ National Freedom to Marry Coalition Select Signatories of The Marriage Resolution December 11, 1997 Select Individuals Coretta Scott King Gillian Anderson Bea Arthur Beck Randy Becker & Shae D'lyn Kathleen Chalfant David Crosby Ted Danson & Mary Steenburgen Ellen DeGeneres & Anne Heche Lea Delaria Laura Dern David Duchovny Nora Ephron Melissa Etheridge & Julie Cypher Mike Farrell Harvey Fierstein Whoopi Goldberg Helen Hunt Werner Klemperer Hon. Sheila James Kuehl Lucy Lawless Norman Lear John Leguizamo Dr. Simon LeVay Judith Light Luscious Jackson Hon. Carole Migden Eleanor Mondale Terrence McNally Kathy Najimy Dave Pallone Nick Pileggi Bonnie Raitt Anthony Rapp Paul Reiser The Cast of Rent Bishop Walter Righter Chita Rivera Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong Bob Smith Gloria Steinem Marlo Thomas & Phil Donahue Lily Tomlin Select Religious Organizations American Friends Service Committee (Quakers) American Humanist Association California Council of Churches Central Conference of American Rabbis Dignity/USA Ecumenical Catholic Church Federation of Reconstructionist Congregations & Havurot Friends for Lesbian & Gay Concerns (Quakers) Lazarus Project, Mission of the Presbyterian Church National Council of Jewish Women Union of American Hebrew Congregations Unitarian Universalist Association Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches Women's Rabbinic Network, Reform Women Rabbis Select Civil Rights Organizations & Others Albuquerque Center for Law & Justice American Civil Liberties Union American Ethical Union American Family Therapy Academy American Latin Alliance And Justice For All Atlantic Records Bar Association of the City of NY Bar Association of San Francisco Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS Gay Asian Pacific Alliance Gay & Lesbian Latinos United Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation Gay & Lesbian Medical Association GAY & LESBIAN PARENTS COALITION INTERNATIONAL Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network Gay Men of African Descent Hetrick-Martin Institute Human Rights Campaign Ithaca, NY Japanese-American Bar Association Japanese-American Citizens League LEAGUE/AT&T Lesbian & Gay Immigration Rights Task Force Men of All Colors Together National Adoption Information Clearinghouse National Association for Women in Education National Association of Social Workers National Black Lesbian & Gay Leadership Forum National Center for Lesbian Rights National Gay & Lesbian Task Force National Latino/a Lesbian & Gay Organization National Organization for Women Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays People for the American Way POZ Magazine Rutgers School of Law, Newark Urban Legal Clinic Socialist Party USA Southern Center for Law & Justice United States Student Association UCLA Department of Social Welfare West Hollywood, CA Women's Legal Defense Fund ... and many others, state, local, and national THE MARRIAGE RESOLUTION Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage. I/We support the above Resolution. Please feel free to include me/us as a voice in educating the public: NAME(S): _________________________________________ SIGNATURE(S): ____________________________________ AFFILIATION: ______________________________________ ADDRESS: ________________________________________ CITY/STATE/ZIP:___________________________________ PHONE: (_______) ___________ -_____________________ FAX: (_______) ___________ - ________________________ E-MAIL: __________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT:__________________ ______________________________________ Endorsing this Resolution authorizes Lambda's Marriage Project to identify you as a supporter of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and use your name and/or likeness in various forums, including press and media, publicity, announcements, lists of such supporters, advertisements, testimony before legislatures, presentations to other potential supporters, and the like. Please return this signature form by fax or mail to: Evan Wolfson, Director - The Marriage Project, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 120 Wall Street, Suite 1500, New York, NY 10005 phone: (212) 809-8585, fax: (212) 809-0055 e-mail: ewlldef@aol.com VERMONT (Washington Blade December 5, 1997) The state of Vermont submitted its response November 11 to a lawsuit filed by Gay couples seeking the right to obtain a marriage license. The state opposes issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and among the reasons it does, according to the state's brief, is that "if same-sex marriages are allowed, a widow would be allowed to marry her elderly mother." Of course, most marriage laws already ban men from marrying their mothers and women from marrying their fathers; presumably, if same-sex marriages are eventually allowed, Gay legal activists will be willing to concede that this same restriction should apply to Gay men and Lesbians as well. It is, in fact, the state of Vermont that argues for a "Gay exception" - all couples who are in love and want to provide some legal security for their relationships and their families can obtain a marriage license, except same-sex couples. The state argues that while it is treating same-sex couples differently it is doing so for seven reasons: * to "promote marriage as a way to unite men and women," * to promote child-rearing "in a setting which provides both male and female role models," * to "send a public message that procreation and child-rearing are intertwined," * to prevent the destabilization of the institution of marriage, * to ensure that other marriages approved by Vermont will retain legal recognition in other states, * to "reflect and shape value judgments" (in this argument, the state trots out its darkest, middle-of-the-night fears of "sexual relations with individuals under age 16," bigamy, polygamy, and prostitution, etc.) and, * to discourage the use of sperm donors and surrogate mothers. Vermont's reasons include something old, something new, something borrowed, and something, well, out of the blue. The argument about preserving the institution of marriage is an old one which the right-wing has been tossing around for quite a while; the concern about "uniting" men and women is a new one in this context. Vermont borrowed Hawaii's argument about being concerned that other states won't recognize any marriage if it recognizes same-sex marriages. But nobody has yet has offered the concern that women who lose their husbands to death might want to take advantage of same-sex marriage to marry their mothers. Vermont also trips on its own trappings. Its brief attacks the "increased creation of children through technologically or third-party assisted reproduction" even though such means are much more frequently used by married heterosexual couples than Gay couples. "I think the state's motion is insulting to every couple - including married couples - who cannot or do not have children," said Susan Murray, a Lesbian activist attorney helping to represent the Gay couples in Vermont. "It's based on the assumption that the primary reason for marriage is procreation. It ignores that less than 30 percent of Americans are married with children, and it ignores the fact that many Gay people are parents and are raising kids. Those kids deserve the same protection and support ... as kids raised by straight couples." Murray said she thinks both Gay and straight people would take issue with the state's attempt to "pigeonhole" men and women as having "some sort of specific stereotyped gender roles." Vermont did not have too many places to look in finding a model for its own legal defense. It is only the second state to have to sit down and come up with a formal list of reasons to justify denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Thus far, the only other state to face a lawsuit this far along has been Hawaii. Hawaii, in a trial last year, offered these reasons: * protecting children, * promoting procreation, * protecting public funds, * protecting anti-Gay expressions based on religion, and * ensuring that other marriages are recognized in other states. A state district court judge in Hawaii ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional and that none of the reasons justified it. Gay legal activists are now waiting to hear whether the Hawaii Supreme Court agrees. Evan Wolfson, head of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's Marriage Project, said he's currently waiting to hear if and when the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the appeal. If the high court chooses, he noted, it could issue a ruling without hearing oral arguments, meaning a decision could be released even as quickly as this month (though courts are not known for such rapidity). Wolfson characterized Vermont's arguments as "grasping at straws." Mary Bonauto, civil rights director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders which is helping press the Vermont case, said attorneys representing the Gay couples filed their response to Vermont's brief Nov. 25. She called the state's justifications "contorted." "They have to go out of their way to create these assumptions about marriage which have no resemblance to reality," said Bonauto. "Or they create these scenarios of entangled family relationships to suggest that there's some taint to Gay families. Marriage is about commitment and being together, love and a whole lot of other things for which there's no reason to exclude same-sex couples." Murray expressed confidence that the Vermont law will also be found unconstitutional. "The underlying purpose of the marriage statutes," said Murray, "should be to provide protections, encouragement, and support for all committed couples, whether they are Gay or straight." CALIFORNIA Towering high above West Hollywood, California, a 14 x 48 foot Billboard will radiate its message not only throughout the city, but across the nation. Under the guidance of 'Midnight Gorilla Artist' Robbie Conal, best known for his satiric caricature of public icons, a "Freedom to Marry" public service announcement will be mounted by artist and broadcast journalist, Jill Abrams. The unveiling of this Outdoor Systems Billboard on January 1 will mark the resolution to shift California's and the nation's paradigms on same sex unions. Renowned billboard artist Raphael Valencia masterfully recreates in oil paint, Jill Abrams' original illustration entitled "Registered @ Epiffany's", revealing two elated brides riding off on their motorcycle after having been "Just Married". This billboard unveiling will pay homage to all lifelong partners seeking the opportunity to validate their union through the sanctuary of marriage. Creating visibility will initiate dialogue and heighten awareness of the rights and privileges that marital status provides, and that gay Americans presently do not enjoy. "If our freedom to marry infringed on the rights of the heterosexual community, I would welcome debate, but I don't see that it does, so I will continue to pursue our equality!" proclaims Ms. Abrams. LOVE MAKES A FAMILY LOVE MAKES A FAMILY: Living in Lesbian and Gay Families, the acclaimed photo-text exhibit continues to tour the nation. There are still some slots available during the winter/spring/summer of l998, so please contact Family Diversity Projects for more information via email at famphoto@aol.com or visit our website http://www.javanet.com/~famphoto/lovfam.html The schedule for this winter includes: * now- end of January. Maine tour including Statehouse. contact rossetti@biddeford.com * Jan. 4-15 Exeter Academy, Exeter, NH . Dave Weber is contact person dweber@exter.edu * Jan. l5-Feb. 2 Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio contact uyji@hiram.edu or MCMANAMONH@Hiram.EDU * Feb 2-Feb. l7 Fairfield University in Fairfield, Ct email amcintyre@fair1.fairfield.edu * Feb. 2-April 6 SUNY Oswego in NY Contact bperry@oswego.oswego.edu * Feb. 27-March 30 Brown University, Providence, RI contact Margaret_klawunn@brown.edu * March l- April 28 PFLAG-Houston email socmom6@aol.com * March l- April 28 PFLAG-Houston email socmom6@aol.com * March 2-April 11. Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois. Contact K-Kohberger@wiu.edu * March 28-April ll. St. Andrew's Presbyterian College, Laurinburg, NC, contact CHUCKEM@tartan.sapc.edu * April 3-May l Colgate University, Hamilton, NY. * April l2-30 Susquehanna University contact perkins@susqu.edu NICARAGUA (Wockner News Service, November 24, 1997) A Nicaraguan gay couple who got married after one of the two obtained a fake birth certificate changing his gender were arrested in Leon last week along with the people who witnessed the wedding. The couple was taken into custody after a doctor who treated their two-month-old adopted child became suspicious and called police. They were also charged with kidnapping the baby. Nicaragua bans same-sex marriage, and gay sex is prohibited under penalty of one to three years in prison. ARGENTINA (Wockner News Service, November 24, 1997) Two male soldiers who say they were forced out of their jobs at Argentina's Air Force hospital because they are a couple have filed suit against the Ministry of Defense with backing from the National Institute Against Discrimination. Leonardo Pini, a doctor, and Oscar Arcas, a clerk, are demanding that Pini be re-hired or given an Air Force pension. WOCKNER NEWS SERVICE NOW ON-LINE The Wockner News Service has come back online after a lengthy and unfortunate sabbatical. The site allows keyword searching of the past 4 years of his weekly world-news briefs. The site can be found at http://www.wockner.com ARIZONA (The Arizona Republic, December 4, 1997) "It is not a natural family setting." "The children will not have the opposite sex role model." "The children will be ostracized in the community." "These families are families of last resort for older, minority, and handicapped children." These are the kinds of statements that abounded in social work and in society almost 20 years ago when I set out as a single person to adopt my first child. I remembered these kinds of comments made to me by people who should have known better as I read about Rep. Karen Johnson's plan to introduce legislation in January to require foster parents to be legally married. Rep. Johnson, of Mesa, said that only people who "live a normal life" should be eligible to be to become foster parents. That means gay and lesbian or single parents are unsuitable. First, being married is no guarantee that the relationship will last, judging from U.S. divorce rates. Secondly, the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its list of mental orders in 1973 so the "abnormal" card should not figure in this debate. One's sexual identification is not a litmus test on normalcy any more than one's marital status. Surely we have come a long way since we considered a single-headed family as broken. Many work quite well. Society has had to adapt to alternate-family constellations beginning with single-parent families due to divorce, sandwich families (baby boomers raising their children and caring for aging parents), and gay and lesbian couples raising children. The issue of gay and lesbian individuals/couples fostering/adopting unrelated children is not just an Arizona issue, it is a hot international one. On Oct. 22, Judge Sybil Moses of Bergen County Superior Court, Hackensack, N.J., granted a gay couple, Jon Holden and Michael Galluccio, the right to adopt their 2-year-old foster son whom they had fostered since the age of 3 months. In May, a United Kingdom high court justice overruled the birth mother's objection to her 11-year-old daughter's adoption by a lesbian who had parented the child since 1995 with her partner. Justice Singer said that such objections are generally based on confusion between homosexuality and pedophilia. In Vancouver, B.C., Canada in December 1996, British Columbia enacted legislation specifically legalizing adoption by gay and lesbian couples. (Quebec legislation a few years ago enables unrelated individuals - interpreted to mean gay and lesbian couples - to adopt.) In August 1996, the New South Wales (Australia) Law Reform Commission recommended that adoption laws be changed to include gay and lesbian couples. In June 1996, the Des Moines, Iowa, Foster and Adoptive Parents Association awarded its Foster Parents of the year award to a gay couple. The state Department of Human Services does not consider the sexual orientation of couples before it places children in foster homes. Johannesburg Child Welfare permitted the first gay couple to adopt a child in August 1995. Just this week, Dutch gay couples were given the right to legal marriage, with the right of child adoption recommended by many parliamentarians. On the opposite side were these rulings: Circuit Judge John Frusciante ruled against the attempt of a Dade County lesbian jail guard to overturn a state law banning child adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Frusciante stated, "The uncontroverted testimony is that children need both male and female influence to develop appropriately." In Alberta, Canada, a lesbian who has been a foster parent for more than 70 children sued the province in August 1997 because of its new ban on singles known to be homosexuals. In Brisbane, Australia, in November 1996, state minister for family services Kevin Lingard banned single men and lesbian couples from fostering, which reversed the previous minister's policy. Lingard said, "It's about time we turned the clock back on some of these matters." I hope that Rep. Johnson is aware of the precedents that have been set worldwide. Foster parents need to be assessed on the basis of their parenting potential; their ability to protect and nurture children in a safe, secure environment; their ability to support relationships between children and their biological parents and siblings; and upon integrity of character. Unlike some of the CPS (Child Protective Services) officials who have been quoted, I would not cite the shortage of foster homes as a reason for considering gay and lesbian couples because that implies that we are lowering our standards, as was implied when single foster/adoptive parents were first considered. In the interest of the foster children involved, let the acceptance or rejection of gay and lesbian fostering applicants rest solely on their parenting abilities. (Diane C. Jacobs is a doctoral student in social work at Arizona State University. Her column appears every other Thursday. E-mail: dianecjacobs@juno.com.) A NEW BOOK IS BEING WRITTEN My name is Carolina and I,m a daughter of lesbians. And I'm putting together a book of storys of kids with Gay Lesbian ect. parents I would be really happy if you could put this in your newsletters. Calling all kids under 25 with lesbian ,gay , bisexual parents. Or over 25 who grew up with gay parents. I've lately been wanting to read some stories about kids with gay parents. There aren't enough books with stories like that, so I'm making my own: Are you the child of some gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender parents and you want to be out to your friends? Or are you proud of your family and want to reach out to others like you? Or do you just have a family story to tell? If any of these are you please send your story to me. I will also interview most people. I want a diverse collection of stories to publish in a book by and for kids, especially teens. Pass the word along to other kids you know, too. Send your story to: Carolina Wings, 565 Harrison St., Sebastopol CA 95472 or email it to me at cwings@sonic.net NEWFOUNDLAND (PlanetOut, December 10, 1997) The third reading proved to be the charm for Newfoundland's lesbigay human rights bill, as Prince Edward Island promises action and Alberta remains obstinate. The addition of sexual orientation as a protected category under the provincial Human Rights Code was passed on its third and final reading by the Newfoundland House of Assembly on December 9, and now requires only the formality of a signature from the Lieutenant Governor to become law. The measure had passed on its second reading last week. Gays and lesbians will be protected from discrimination in areas including employment, housing, literature, and public accommodations and services. Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality co-chair Brian Hodder credits the ascension of provincial premier Brian Tobin for finally moving Bill 21, which made little progress previously when Clyde Wells headed the ruling Liberal Party. Hodder also noted that the bill includes a clause which will automatically offer participation of gay and lesbian domestic partners in pensions whenever the federal Income Tax Act is amended to allow it. Newfoundland's action leaves Prince Edward Island and Alberta as the only Canadian provinces without civil rights protections for lesbians and gays. Prince Edward Island has been promising the move, but a bill has yet to be introduced in its legislature. Alberta continues to use the courts in an effort to defend its right not to enact such a law, preferring a generic civil rights law the provincial government believes "protects everyone" but which academician Delwin Vriend found denied him recourse to the provincial Human Rights Commission when he was fired from King's College for being gay. ___________________________ To SUBSCRIBE, send an e-mail message to glpcinat@ix.netcom.com saying "subscribe Parents' Network", To UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message to glpcinat@ix.netcom.com saying "unsubscribe Parents' Network" and you will be removed from the list. ICQ: 2457661