Irina Fedotova-Fet, 30, and Irina Shipitko, 32, attempted to marry in Russia in May but were turned away.

Early this month the Associated Press reported their attempt to marry in Moscow.

“We want recognition of our relationship by society and the state. We are a family already, we live together and share household chores,” Shipitko said. “We also would like to have children. That is why we want legal recognition of our union.”

The two women said they had plans to fly to Canada later this month to wed and return to Russia, forcing the country to recognize their marriage.

Today, they will have a city hall wedding in Toronto.

They will use other laws of Russia to validate their union, according to United Press International.

The couple will hold a press conference today with their lawyer and Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alekseev.

Although homosexuality was decriminalized in Russia in the 1990s, many Russians are still opposed to gay rights.

Every military branch dismissed a disproportionate number of women in 2008 under the policy banning openly gay servicemembers. But the discrepancy was particularly marked in the Air Force, where women were a majority of those let go under the policy, even though they made up only 20 percent of personnel.

Across the military, women represented about one-third of the 619 people discharged based on sexual orientation. They account for just 15 percent of servicemembers.

The data was released Thursday by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – Pentagon statistics obtained by University of California researchers show that lesbians were discharged under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at a much higher rate than gay men.

Every military branch dismissed a disproportionate number of women in 2008 under the policy banning openly gay servicemembers. But the discrepancy was particularly marked in the Air Force, where women were a majority of those let go under the policy, even though they made up only 20 percent of personnel.

Across the military, women represented about one-third of the 619 people discharged based on sexual orientation. They account for just 15 percent of servicemembers.

The data was released Thursday by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Look around these days at the supermarkets and department stores and you are likely to see a lot of pink.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

And awareness we need. Awareness saves lives.

Today there are about 2.5 million breast cancer survivors living in the United States.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 192,370 new cases of invasive breast cancer will have been diagnosed among women in the United States this year.

An estimated 40,170 women will die from the disease this year.

And research shows that the rate of breast cancer among lesbians and bisexual women is higher than among heterosexual women.

“Cancer is a disease that shatters our lives and ravages our community in epidemic proportions,” reads the preamble to the Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Women Cancer Patients’ Bill of Rights from The Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization.

Yes, awareness we need, because a recent national survey found that too few — not even a majority — in the adult U.S. population know what breast cancer is, know that breast cancer is a malignant tumor that grows in one or both breasts, that breast cancer usually develops in the ducts or lobules of the breast.

Yet another survey found a large majority of the U.S. adult population knows the pink ribbon is a symbol for breast cancer awareness and associate pink with the disease.

How is it that a campaign to fight a killer disease, a campaign to raise money for research and discover new cures and identify causes, a campaign to promote preventative health measures and to improve treatment methods, has developed into a culture, a fashion, a trend, a marketing mania?

In a speech in 2001, feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich, then undergoing treatment for breast cancer, wrote about “breast cancer culture.”

“How to define breast cancer culture?

“It’s very pink and femme and frilly — all about pink ribbons, pink rhinestone pins, pink T-shirts and, of course, a lot about cosmetics. The American Cancer Society offers a program called ‘Look Good…Feel Better,’ which gives out free cosmetics to women undergoing breast cancer treatment. The Libby Ross Foundation gives breast cancer patients a free tote bag containing Estee Lauder body crème, a pink satin pillowcase, a set of Japanese cosmetics and two rhinestone bracelets. And no one, so far as I could determine, was complaining about the strange idea that you can fight a potentially fatal disease with eyeliner and blush.”

The culture has expanded since 2001, with a proliferation of pink-packaged products — soap, mouthwash, toothpaste, cookies, credit, gasoline, candies, cosmetics, teddy bears, T-shirts, shoes, handbags, totes, batteries, electronics, musical instruments, magazines, cereals, sodas and beers. Board an airline this month and you might be able to sip a Pink Ribbon Chardonnay as you jet from here to there.

Some companies are dedicating much higher percentages of sales for research and breast cancer programs than others — meaning buyers beware.

I don’t bemoan or want to tear down pink power, and I respect the sisterhood of women coming together in city after city to walk for a cure and march for a cause.

I don’t question the commitment of those in the women’s health movement advocating for change — in the medical professional and at the legislative level.

But this commercialization of the movement seems unprecedented and inappropriate, and I believe it has borrowed the spotlight from a grassroots effort for real reform.

Not one of the dozen press releases from companies touting the sale of a Breast Cancer Awareness pink product contained a quote or a statement encouraging women to get mammograms or conduct self-examinations. And not one corporate spokesperson I spoke with wanted to talk about health care policies, medical research and treatment options.

You might think of it this way: We who should be seeing red — over too few treatment options a lack of preventative care, denied treatment under their insurance and, most recently, denied a public option for coverage — are being encouraged to get cozy — and tricked into complacency — in pink.

When Cowell is “rude and mean,” DeGeneres said, she’ll tell him. But she said she’ll find a compassionate way to critique the contestants.

DeGeneres will join “American Idol” as the fourth judge when the show returns for its ninth season in January. The seat opened up when Paula Abdul resigned in the midst of a contract dispute.

DeGeneres, who signed a five-year deal with “Idol,” will continue with her daytime talk show.

She’s logged at least a dozen 2009 screen credits, perhaps the highest-profile role as Sue Sylvester, the diabolically funny cheerleading coach in Fox’s high-school musical series “Glee,” and as “French Chef” host Julia Child’s towering sister Dorothy McWilliams opposite Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia.”

Lynch now appears in the coming-of-age comedy “Post Grad” with Alexis Bledel, and next month, she’s in the season opener of the CBS’ sitcom “Two and a Half Men.” Lynch is busy, in the way character actors used to be in the movie-a-week studio-system heyday.

But she bristles at the suggestion she’s the hardest-working woman in Hollywood.

“You know, I’m not crazy-busy,” Lynch said. “The nature of what I do, I only work two or three days at a time. … I kind of pop in and out of things. So it’s three days here, maybe a week there. Then I’m left with myself and my horrible thoughts.”

She doesn’t elaborate, but getting in touch with her dark side has clearly served Lynch well, especially with her work on “Glee,” where the character is, essentially, the school’s Darth Vader. She’s protecting her evil empire from – and here’s what makes it so hilarious – the loser kids in the new glee club.

“I don’t mean to be a psychologist in this, but I think we all have that in us, that part of us that wants to control our environment,” Lynch said. “‘This is black, this is white, there’s no gray area.’ And I think that’s what people are entertained by, because it’s within us, we all have that.”

And, yes, that includes Lynch herself.

“I was talking to my therapist about people passing on bikes on the right and how it’s wrong,” she explained. “‘You’re supposed to pass on the left.’ And she started laughing. She said, ‘You have to do a character like this.’ And instead of being insulted, I actually created a character of someone who just is very angry because there’s a way to do things, and when people go against that, it ruins it for everyone.”

Lynch, 49, has been doing screen work since the late ’80s. But her breakthrough didn’t come until 2000, when she stood out in one of director Christopher Guest’s traditionally crowded ensembles, playing a domineering personal dog handler in “Best in Show.”

“Julie & Julia” offered a rare chance for Lynch to not only get dramatic, but also do it on-screen with no less than Streep.

“I did my best to hold it together inside, because you’re working with someone who is not only a legend, but somebody who has been a hero of mine for a long time,” Lynch said. “So you kind of have to let that go and just do your job. … We were shooting in a restaurant in Brooklyn, and we were waiting for the light so we could cross into our trailers. And she slipped her arm in mine and we crossed the street together, and I – aaach! – it was wonderful.”

She seems to have everything but a leading role.

“No, I love what I’m doing,” she replied. “No, really, I’m truly satisfied. I love the area I’m in, I think it speaks to my strengths and I’m able to grow within it. I don’t really have any desire to be out-there or over-there or doing-that.”

“How many generations of women have been told to avoid lifting heavy objects?” Dr. Eric Winer, breast cancer chief at the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, lamented after seeing the surprising results of the new study. “Women who were doing the lifting actually had fewer arm problems because they had better muscle tone.”

The study was led by Kathryn Schmitz, an exercise scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, and funded by the federal government. Results are in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.

More than 2.4 million Americans are breast cancer survivors, and the study could mean a big difference in their quality of life. Cancer treatment-related arm swelling now appears to be one of many ailments made better by exercise – not worse, Schmitz said.

“Fifty years ago we told people who had a heart attack not to exercise anymore,” and people with sore backs to heal with bed rest, Schmitz said. “It was well-meaning advice but it was polar opposite of the truth.”

Women who have had radiation to the armpit, or lymph nodes removed to check for cancer, can suffer lymphedema – a buildup of fluids that causes painful and unsightly swelling of the arms or hands.

To avoid it, doctors have advised women to avoid using the affected arm to lift toddlers, carry a heavy purse or scrub floors. Even activities like golf and tennis raised concern.

Women think, “Oh, my God, I need to baby the arm,” Schmitz said.

Lifting weights – which boosts mood, muscle mass, bone strength and weight control – was thought to be a bad idea for women prone to lymphedema.

Schmitz challenged that notion with a small study several years ago, finding that weight training did not make lymphedema worse. Her new study is the first one large and long enough to give clear proof that this is so, and even suggests that weightlifting can help.

It involved 141 breast cancer survivors who had suffered lymphedema. Half were told not to change their exercise habits. The rest were given 90-minute weightlifting classes twice a week for 13 weeks at community gyms, mostly YMCAs.

They wore a custom-fitted compression garment on the affected arm and gradually worked up to more challenging weights and repetitions. For the next 39 weeks, they continued these exercises on their own.

The women’s arms were measured monthly. After one year, fewer weightlifters had suffered lymphedema flare-ups – 14 percent versus 29 percent of the others. Weightlifters reported fewer symptoms and greater strength. Rates of change in arm size due to swelling were similar in both groups.

“I found it was really very effective. It not only gave me strength and mobility but it improved my balance and coordination,” said one participant, Clare Faber, 66, of suburban Philadelphia. “It really does offer women hope.”

Another participant, Gay McArthur, 56, of Smithfield, N.J., has continued weightlifting on her own since the study ended.

“When I first got diagnosed with lymphedema, they said I couldn’t lift more than five pounds,” she said. But weight training caused no problems and has made her feel better, she said.

It also should save money, though the study did not measure this, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, wrote in an editorial in the medical journal. In the study, the group of weightlifters made only 77 visits to doctors or physical therapists for lymphedema flare-ups versus 195 visits for the others, she noted.

Another part of the study is evaluating whether weight training can prevent a first case of lymphedema in breast cancer survivors; results are expected soon, Schmitz said.

Breast cancer survivors should not rush into weight training – that could trigger problems. Schmitz suggests:

-Have a certified fitness professional teach you how to do the exercises properly.

-Start slow, with a program that gradually progresses.

-Wear a well-fitting compression garment during workouts.

The hearings come at the prompting of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) after she realized she would be unable to secure the votes needed for an amendment to the Military Reauthorization Act which would instruct the Department of Defense to stop investigating servicemembers for being gay.

Congressional action might lessen pressure on the White House, says the Daily Beast – the Palm Center, which in May released a report suggesting President Obama could use stop-loss to halt gay discharges, is expected to issue new research this week called, “A Self-Inflicted Wound: How and Why Gays Give the White House a Free Pass on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Since Obama took office, 265 men and women have been dismissed under the military ban. Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe the ban should be lifted.

Read the full Daily Beast story by Jason Bellini.

“Sources said that Kamla and Vimla (names changed), the girls from village Arvat and Padoli respectively, came close to each other some four years back while studying in Chandrapur. The friendship between Kamla (19), an intermediate student, and Vimla, a graduate, reportedly turned into a lesbian relationship a couple of years back even as both the families considered them just close friends, sources said.

Reports said that since childhood Vimla used to behave and dress up like boys, and even took on the name ‘Rohit’. Both the girls spent hours together at each others’ homes, however family members did not have any clue about their lesbian relationship, sources said.

Some days back the two girls shocked their families by expressing their desire to tie the nuptial knot. The families initially resisted the decision but surrendered to the will of their children. Vimla’s brother Amar told scribes that the two were married at a religious place in Bhadrawati a few days back. Presently, Kamla is living at Vimla’s home in Padoli.

“Such relationship and marriage is against the ethos and traditions of Hindu religion, and we will steadfastly oppose it. The brother of one of the two girl has confessed to tying their nuptial knot,” said Ramesh Tiwari, head of the local Sena unit.

A group of Shiv Sainiks led by Tiwari, Rajendra Allewar and district women’s president Kusum Udar staged a protest in front of the Padoli police outpost on Monday demanding immediate action against the two families.”

Homosexuality is illegal in India, though it is no longer aggressively prosecuted. There is no legal recognition of same-sex couples under Indian law.  However, since 1987, there have been sporadic reports of women marrying each other. Marriages in India require no license from the state – most are performed through religious rites alone.

From Wikipedia:

“Family reactions [of gay marriages] range from support to disapproval to violent persecution. While police generally harass such couples, Indian courts have uniformly upheld their right, as adults, to live with whomever they wish. In recent years, some of these couples have appeared on television as well. There have also been numerous joint suicides by same-sex couples, mostly female (male-female couples also resort to suicide or to elopement and religious marriage when their families oppose their unions).”

We’ve now been together for four years, in a committed relationship for the last three years. Despite some ups and downs, our connection has still remained strong. But just a month ago, my partner flirted with another woman, and the two developed feelings for each other. The other woman’s now out of the picture. To my knowledge, there’s been no contact. But needless to say, that was a shock, and I told her I wasn’t ready for an open relationship.

We decided that we weren’t getting what we wanted from each other (obviously!) and need to find out why she felt desire for another woman. We discovered that we do resent how very different we are.

She realized that in many ways, I am a crutch to her: I keep a job, pay all our bills, and do what I need to stay afloat. I fear we would get married for the wrong reasons—maybe because we’re scared that we won’t find anyone else who will connect the way we do. I’m okay with the idea of us not working out. But she isn’t—she believes marriage is the next step in our relationship, a way to stop stunting ourselves. I disagree.

A month ago, she had feelings for someone else, and now she wants to spend her life with me? But she thinks that unless we get married, we aren’t moving forward. I don’t need to be married to this woman to be committed, but I just need someone else’s opinion.

—U-Hauled in Cleveland

Dear U-Hauled,

If you’re having doubts, I highly recommend not binding yourself legally through marriage or any other way!

Having said that, when couples start committing to each other, some natural things do happen —especially at the 3-to-5 year mark, exactly where you two are. You’d think that the more you commit to the person of your dreams, problems would go away. But in most relationships, the more partners commit the more problems and conflicts!

For you and your partner, commitment involves talking about marriage. For others, it involves deciding to see each other only, going away together on a trip, purchasing something together, adopting children—just to name a few. You would think that this all bring partners closer. But the more we commit to staying on that freeway of love, the more we look for exit ramps.

The more partners depend on each other and close off exits, the more conflicts arise. That can be scary, and there is a reason.

Our internal pharmacy of “love drugs,” dopamine and oxytocin, makes the beginning of romantic love feel ecstatic, euphoric. We finish each other’s sentences; focus on the positives (we find many!), assume we’ve found the one and often move in with each other too soon (which you may have done).

These internal love drugs are short-lived, meant only to bond us to another. After six to 18 months, the drugs wear off, and we’re faced with the negatives about our partners that we could overlook before. Then conflict arises.

Partners begin to have trouble communicating, grow bothered by their differences (as you mentioned is happening for you both), and no longer feel as safe in each other’s presence. We feel less attached and connected than hurt and frustrated.  The more we commit, the more we feel dependent on our partner, which awakens all our past dependencies, from childhood on. Our current partner becomes a blank screen, onto whom we project all our home movies—unresolved baggage from childhood caretakers and previous adult partners.

To ease that conflict, we create exits—such as flirting with another woman or not wanting to legally bind ourselves to a partner through marriage or owning property. Others may pour themselves into a job or working out; involve themselves with pets, hobbies, addictions—anything to distract from problems in their relationship.

So in some ways, it’s normal that your partner got involved with another woman. I’m not saying it’s okay! It may have been her way of “acting out” her fear of intimacy. The fact that you don’t want to commit that strongly through “marriage” might be your fear of intimacy. You both need to explore those exit ramps—and consider closing them.

Another explanation could be that you’re not right for each other. You might hesitate to “commit marriage” because you’re not okay with something about her. Or she may not really want to commit as much as she says she does.

I always advise trying to make your relationship as good as it can be, and then deciding whether to stay or leave.

How can you know? After talking to each other, if you’re still left with doubts about commitment, don’t try to resolve them on your own. I recommend seeing a therapist, relationship coach or clergyperson who understands couples’ normal dynamics.  It can be very helpful to have another pair of eyes on your relationship and might help each of you understand what’s really going on between you.

Good luck! You and your relationship are worth it.