First, there's the epic Democratic convention last week. I caught a bit of it, and, blustery and staged as it was, I have to admit it made me a little misty at times.

Then there was McCain actually congratulating Obama on his nomination in a national TV ad, even though it seemed a bit more self-congratulatory than anything else: 

Martin (left), and Lyon

1955, people! Can you imagine fighting for lesbian rights in 1955? Publishing a newsletter called "The Ladder" that reassured lesbians they were not immoral, unnatural beings, in 1956? Or keeping up the fight for more than 50 years, being one of the lead plaintiffs in the case for marriage equality that convinced the California supreme court to allow same-sex couples to marry.

In 1973, she became the first out lesbian to serve on the board of directors of the National Organization for Women—which, even then, was a controversial placement.

I'm so glad she lived to see the day when she could legally marry Lyon, her partner of 55 years (!), in her home state. They were the first same-sex couple to be married in Calfornia at a special ceremony presided over by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom.

It's good to remember how tireless and inspiring people can be. Thanks, Del.

I blogged about this a while ago when the buzz was going around. Now it's confirmed -- openly gay Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe, of France's faltering Socialist party, will seek his party's nomination for the 2012 presidential election.

The party has been in disarray since Segolene Royal was beaten by Nicolas Sarkozy for the presidency in May 2007 and the party has failed to mount an effective opposition.

Party members are due to choose a new leader in November and Royal already has said she would seek to renew her leadership.

Delanoe’s declaration in an interview with Le Monde newspaper puts to rest months of speculation.

[via 365gay.com]

Segolene Royal no doubt won't give up without a fight. But doesn't she know that upwardly-mobile gay mayors seem to be the "in" thing these days?

Not sure where I stand on this. A lot of the gay blogosphere has been up in arms about the fact that Matthew Mitcham, an Australian diver who won a surprise gold medal at the Beijing games and the only openly gay male athlete in these Olympics, wasn't referred to as gay by NBC.

The commentators decidedly did not mention his sexual orientation, nor the historic nature of his winning a gold medal. The medal ceremony wasn't telecast, instead broadcast on NBC's Olympics web site. Mitchum's partner and mother, however, were in the stands—he even ran up into the stands to kiss him after his surprise win, which foiled an attempt by the Chinese team to sweep the diving golds.

AfterElton got a hold of an NBC rep, who said this:

“In virtually every case, we don’t discuss an athlete’s sexual orientation.”

Never mind that the frequent cutaways to spouses in the audience or sappy life-story interstitials we've all seen a million times basically always refer to an athlete's sexual orientation in the course of their discourse.

One could argue that Mitcham's sexual orientation is not the point; his diving is. However, if the broadcasters at NBC knew his partner was in the stands and purposely did not show his reaction like they do with so many other athletes, that's censorship and bias.

At the very least, a short acknowledgement of his status as the *only* openly gay male athlete in Beijing would have been welcomed. The fact that he won a gold medal makes the omission even more glaring.

Check out this LA Times piece for an example of a tasteful way NBC could have mentioned his sexuality in reference to the dramatic nature of this gold medal contest without that becoming the focus of coverage.

Is it safe to assume that gay marriage is here to stay when Hallmark starts issuing gay wedding cards?

The greeting cards giant is rolling out four designs this summer, all of which are are very carefully worded to celebrate a couple of the same sex entering into a legally recognized committed relationship -- but none actually use the term "marriage," which ostensibly makes them useful for commitment ceremonies as well.

Here are two samples:

More from the story:

Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

"It's our goal to be as relevant as possible to as many people as we can," Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Gronberg Kolell said. 

Gotta love marketers. I want to know when gay dramas are going to start appearing on the Hallmark Channel...