NewsWrap for the week ending March 25, 2006 (As broadcast on This Way Out program #939, distributed 3-27-06) [Written this week Greg Gordon, with thanks to Graham Underhill and Rex Wockner] Reported this week by Rick Watts and Sheri Lunn Bans on gay men donating blood are being debated on 3 continents. Queer activists and supportive medical professionals have for quite some time been urging reconsideration of such across-the-board bans as more sophisticated blood-testing methods have been developed. The South African National Blood Services prohibits donations by men who've had sex with men during the previous 5 years. But a recent meeting of what's being called the Joint Working Group -- composed of registered non-profit groups serving LGBT people in South Africa and representatives from the country's Blood Services -- determined that donor policy needs to be based on high risk behavior and not so-called high risk groups. The panel further concluded that failure to use condoms during anal sex, by both heterosexual and homosexual men, should be a more pressing concern. A committee of scientific and legal experts, to be selected by all members of the Joint Working Group, is scheduled to continue that dialogue in the coming weeks. Because of a jump in trauma cases in major hospitals in the Australian state of Tasmania, the Red Cross Blood Service this week issued an urgent plea for people to donate blood to help it meet increasing demand. The Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group used the news to urge the Red Cross to review its ban on accepting donations from men who've had male-to-male sex in the past year. Group spokesperson Rodney Croome said the Red Cross should screen potential donors based on their sexual practices, not on their sexual orientation. After more than a decade of banning all blood donations by gay men, the American Red Cross this week announced their support for a policy change that would allow such donations -- but only from men who've gone at least a year without having had sex with other men. A spokesperson for the Red Cross called the current blanket ban "unfair and discriminatory" in a statement on the American Association of Blood Banks Web site, saying "it does not appear rational to treat gay sex differently from straight sex." According to a report by the Associated Press, the Red Cross policy change has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to consider a new risk assessment that would take 3 to 6 months to complete. The current 16-year-old ban prohibits any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from ever donating blood. But two prominent groups have come out against any policy change in Canada. Canadian Blood Services, which oversees the nation's blood supply, supports the current ban preventing blood donations by any man who has had sex with another man since 1976, according to a report this week in the Vancouver newspaper The Province. And David Page, a spokesperson for the Canadian Hemophilia Society, said that the one-year celibacy requirement being discussed in the U.S. is not enough. "The information we have now," he said, "is [that such a change] would increase the health risk, not of HIV but of either unknown or emerging viruses." Canadian Blood Services says it is, however, already conducting a risk assessment on the consequences of a policy change. India, one of the world's most populous nations and certainly a country of many contradictions, has officially registered its first gay organization, despite the fact that homosexual acts are still illegal there under Penal Code Section 377, a lingering British colonial-era law. The Men's Community Development Society has been meeting unofficially in Chennai for 6 years and has over 700 members. News about the group's official registration brought supportive comments in the media this week from several national celebrities. India's courts continue to review Section 377, which makes consensual gay sex punishable by up to 10 years in prison. South Korea's Ministry of Defense has responded to criticism earlier this year from the country's National Human Rights Commission over its treatment of gay conscripts. All men are required to serve at least two years in the country's armed forces. "The military will treat homosexual soldiers the same as heterosexual ones," the Ministry said in a written statement distributed this week to news agencies. The announcement also comes after a series of unfair dismissal and bullying incidents in the armed forces were reported in the national press. Though the Ministry statement suggests more grudging tolerance than welcoming acceptance, it's been applauded by South Korea's queer community as a significant step in the right direction. Surveys about attitudes toward lesbians, gay men and queer families poured out of the U.S. this week. A new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press suggests that the tide of American opposition to marriage equality for same gender couples may be receding -- at least a little. A bare majority of 51 percent now oppose same gender marriage, while a similar survey in February 2004 found 63 percent against, at a time when voters in several states were being pushed to the polls to approve constitutional marriage bans. The number of people who say they "strongly" oppose same gender marriage has dropped to 28 percent from what was 42 percent in February 2004. Notably, "strong" opposition has dropped sharply among senior citizens and Republicans who describe themselves as religious moderates. Those supporting marriage equality rose from 30 percent in early 2004 to 39 percent now. Evan Wolfson of the equality group Freedom to Marry said that "if you give people the information and time they need to understand the harm discrimination in marriage causes real American families, the majority will continue to move toward fairness." According to a study released this week by the University of Vermont, same gender family households don't differ all that much from those of the general U.S. population. Professor Glen Elder presented his new research analyzing the lives of same-gender couples at a recent meeting of the Association of American Geographers. Using sophisticated geographic-based analysis, he and his colleagues were able to compare data on a typical group from U.S. Census tracts with those of same gender couples who'd traveled to Vermont from virtually all other U.S. states to enter into civil unions. Of the mostly-insignificant differences between queer and heterosexual households, Elder said, "It's surprising on the one hand, but also reassuring. Gays and lesbians who aspire towards the symbolic and real material benefits of marriage are no different from other people who aspire towards domestic stability and material comfort," he said. "These are not people who are ripping the fabric of America." Children adopted by gays and lesbians grow up no better or worse than those raised by heterosexuals, according to a report released this week by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. "Based on both the available research and growing experience," the report concludes, "adoption by gays and lesbians holds promise as an avenue for achieving permanency for many of the waiting children in foster care." The Institute is a long-established independent organization with no ties to political interest groups or causes, and has for several years been a source of information for journalists, researchers and policymakers on adoption issues. The report, entitled "Expanding Resources for Children", determined that -- on a range of measurements of social and psychological adjustment -- children raised by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those raised in so-called "traditional" families. "There is simply no credible research showing that children are harmed when they're adopted by gay and lesbian parents," said Institute Executive Director Adam Pertman, "but lots of evidence to indicate that they do well in those homes." The report also noted that tens of thousands of children in the foster care system are disadvantaged by laws that bar gays and lesbians from adopting them, and urged that those barriers be lifted. And a California Field poll also published this week reveals a growing acceptance of gays and lesbians, and underscores the "come out" mantra chanted by queer activists since the days of Stonewall. The last comprehensive California poll surveying attitudes toward gays and lesbians in 1997 found that 45 percent of the respondents believed sexual relationships between adults of the same gender were "always wrong". The new poll shows that number has dropped to 32 percent. Some 67 percent of Californians now support queer military service, 59 percent favor bans on workplace discrimination, and 55 percent say gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children. Throughout the poll, those most opposed to legal protections for gays and lesbians were also least likely to personally know any. "To me, that's one of the most revealing numbers in the survey," said Field pollster Mark DiCamillo, "because it says familiarity with gays and lesbians in your own life has a powerful influence." However, the poll numbers on the issue of marriage equality stayed about the same: a slight majority of Californians remain opposed to same gender marriage. And finally, Jamie Raskin, a professor of law at American University, was asked to testify earlier this month at a legislative hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same gender marriage in the state of Maryland. At the end of his queer-supportive testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."