WGLB is a multimedia news magazine. Here we discuss and promote all things GLBTQ, news, history, politics, culture, activism, family, health, entertainment, sports, religion, etc. Welcome and Join the conversation.* please sign our petitions!
Please note-
*Please note- Your browser preferences must be set to 'allow 3rd party cookies' in order to comment in our diaries.
Shortly after I began transitioning in 1992, I ceased to read the local newspaper. I have no idea what the response was to the article about me in the local press. In mid-February a young woman named Jennifer Chilcoat spoke at Hendrix College (also in Conway...this is a college town) about the need for homosexual children to have role models as they grow up. The local newspaper covered her speech and the article appeared on the front page of the paper on Sunday, February 21, 1993.
There were four responses to the article on February 24. One of them mentioned that the 30% suicide rate among homosexual children was because the "chosen lifestyle was diametrically opposed to the Bible's many admonitions condemning same" (God's will, as it were). A second said that "if homosexuals' and lesbians' children do not have `role models,' it is their parent's responsibility to provide it, not the government," showing that the women totally missed the point. A third article actually showed a glimmer of intelligence. The fourth of these articles was by a woman who decided that somehow I needed to be dragged into this.
News Article II
From Estelle Gross,
Conway:
When I read the front page of the Log Cabin Democrat on Sunday, it made me sick. I cannot believe the Log Cabin would put an article such as this ("World lacks homosexual role models") in the paper and especially on the front page. To see a young woman so proudly proclaim her homosexuality, and then tell the rest of her world to accept her and other homosexuals is just too much. To think that Hendrix College would allow her to come on their campus and deliver a speech is unthinkable.
Homosexuality is a choice one makes. Homosexuality is almost unheard of in many parts of the world, especially third world countries. It seems that the more "civilized" a nation becomes the more immoral it becomes. I am also tired of hearing homosexuals say that Christians hate them. Actually, homosexuality is just another form of sexual promiscuity and is certainly forgivable but intolerable.
I also thought I would not see a man dressed in women's clothing up teaching in a state supported university, but that is the very thing being done at the University of Central Arkansas. He is required to dress like a woman before having a sex change operation. This man can often be seen teaching class in a skirt, but he looks and stands like a man. I think it is abominable that our society permits this. Yes, Ms. Chilcoat is right--there are not many good role models left. People are afraid to speak- up for what is right; we are afraid not to jump on the band wagon and be broad-minded. I hope I do not live to be that shallow-minded that I can be blown about like a reed in the wind and willing to accept the "buzz" thing of the decade. I realize that our very President condones this type of lifestyle, and this in and of itself will make many people who lack the moral fortitude go with the flow.
"And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, ..." This was written several thousand years ago and can be found in its entirety in Romans I. Synonyms for depraved are debased, degenerate, perverted, and warped, just to name a few. And if this letter makes you angry, remember Ms. Chilcoat, and others like you, these words were inspired by God, not me."
I'm not privy to what Ken Mehlman did or did not do secretly while working for the Republican Party and the White House. Nor am I privy to his soul. And I'm not privy to hearts of those he caused agony, suffering, anxiety, depression to, or to those were were fired or beaten up partly as a result of the campaigns he waged. And I have no idea what, if anything, he could possibly do for those hearts to forgive him.
Still, Mr. Mehlman claims that "he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage.". That's pretty vague, and seems to consist of doing a fundraiser to support further litigation in the Proposition 8 trial. I have a better idea. If Ken Mehlman really wants to demonstrate a commitment to equal rights, he should employ the political talents he is famous for.
Mr. Mehlman was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007. He was also a very important political operative working in the Bush White House before that. Hell, the American Association of Political Consultants named him the Campaign Manager of the Year in 2005. He's given large sums of money to various Republicans who currently hold positions of responsibility. It's safe to say he knows lots of Republicans. Very Important Republicans. In Washington and everywhere.
The battle for equal marriage rights in California isn't going to be won or lost because Ken Mehlman does or does not co-host a fundraiser. The arguments have been made, the Ninth Circuit and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court will render their verdicts. But there are two hugely important political battles that Mr. Mehlman might, just might, be able to effect to the point that he could actually change the outcome. What might those be?
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA): It's not marriage equality, true. But it's as fundamental to full equality. ENDA is nearly dead, largely because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to invoke cloture (there are at least 51 votes for passage). Could Mr. Mehlman convince two or three Republicans other than Senators Snowe and Collins (who are sponsors of the bill) to support it? Hell, he doesn't even have to do that. All he has to do is convince a few Republicans to vote for cloture. They don't have to vote for the bill itself. If there were five Republicans ready to do that, might Harry Reid just get a spine, round up the 55 Democrats he needs, and push it through?
In a 1967 speech, Martin Luther King, Jr., criticizing black separatism, said, "In the final analysis the weakness of Black Power is its failure to see that the black man needs the white man and the white man needs the black man. However much we may try to romanticize the slogan, there is no separate black path to power and fulfillment that does not intersect white paths, and there is no separate white path to power and fulfillment, short of social disaster, that does not share that power with black aspirations for freedom and human dignity We are bound together in a single garment of destiny." It was his philosophy of inclusion which has led to civil rights expansions across generations. From Letter from a Birmingham Jail until the end of his life, he believed that we're all in this together, that we rise and fall with each other. There was no us vs. them, nobody he wouldn't embrace or persuade to join in the fight for civil rights.
August 28, 1963's protest speech was about that same inclusive philosophy. David Broder writes:
I filled my notebook with comments from marchers who had journeyed long distances and the reasons they gave me for making the effort. A few had specific political agendas -- voicing their distaste for the blockades the legislation had encountered. But most said that they had heard about the plans at church or at temple and simply decided they wanted to be part of it. They came to affirm their solidarity and, if you will, their humanity.
What became apparent, as the masses moved slowly along the Reflecting Pool and gathered before the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, was that if this was a mob, it was the most benign mob in history.
What would become the iconic "I Have A Dream" speech started with a protest, it started with the general goal of promoting basic human rights. The White House was terrified. A bunch of unhappy protesters descending upon the Capitol would probably scare anyone. But especially them. Promises were made about civil rights expansions during the 1963 campaign. The candidate himself promised to promote civil rights more, and then, with the appointment of RFK in his administration, it seemed like he was taking them seriously.
And then, nothing.
The frustration was great because hopes for civil rights had been raised so high by John F. Kennedy's campaign rhetoric and by his decision to name his brother Robert as attorney general. The top ranks of the Justice Department were filled with civil rights advocates, but on Capitol Hill, the traditional opponents were slow-walking every bill, with scarcely an audible objection from the White House.
A campaign which promised equality, used flowery, beautiful rhetoric, and then started making promising appointments early on. An administration and Congress which then decided to slow walk important equality bills. A spineless government unwilling to change in the face of a broad social movement, yearning for nothing short of full acceptance and inclusion.
the entire piece is a riveting, albeit nauseating, read.
But he is still in a fighting mood. “I don’t think they had the F-ing right to tell me what I’m allowed to say. In the end, I think they were trying to suck up to Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch and Bill O’Reilly in a way that’s spineless and appalling for a company [Comcast] that aspires to run a major network news operation [NBC]. What happens when Keith Olbermann goes after O’Reilly? I think that’s scary.”
Today I came across a piece that really shows the problem the left and left-center have governing versus campaigning.
The slice of the LGBT blogosphere that has been critical of this President has been chastised early and often by Obama defenders for expressing our disappointment, frustration -- and yes, anger -- at the inaction, slow-go and even no-go behavior regarding LGBT issues. We are all well aware that Barack Obama held our prized issues -- DADT, ENDA, DOMA, etc. -- in high regard and stressed their priority to him when he was on the campaign trail. We also know what has happened in the last two years.
Here's progressive Peter Daou sounding like many of us in his piece "The fierce urgency of defending Obama - against the left":
On the day he took office, I switched from campaign cheering mode to fulfilling Obama's request that we "hold him accountable." I take those words and that duty seriously. It's my job as a citizen. Since 2008, I've used the written word to tug at the administration from the left.
I truly respect and admire Obama. I've worked in past campaigns with a number of his staffers. I know they are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. There's no denying that they've racked up an impressive list of accomplishments and they deserve credit for it. But that doesn't mean I should set aside the things I've fought for my entire adult life. It doesn't mean I should stay silent if I think the White House could do a better job promoting a progressive vision. And it doesn't mean I should stand aside if I think mistakes are being made. Sure, I'm just one individual with an opinion, but why the fierce urgency of defending Obama whenever I express it?
Obama told us to hold him accountable (do you think he regrets saying that aloud now?), but we're all apparently struggling with what that means. Obviously, there are plenty of flat-out angry and profane critics, more nuanced ones, and those who fall somewhere in between.
Who is to judge what to take seriously -- or dismiss -- in terms of criticism of this President?
A good number of self-appointed arbiters of what is appropriate criticism and what is productive or not productive populate the comments and show up on Facebook/Twitter to "set the record straight" all the time. But these people are no more qualified to hold an opinion than anyone else. It's just that -- an opinion. Take it or leave it. Certainly the White House does, even if they have thin skin over there.
"Some people move in gay circles. I move in bisexual dodecahedrons."
— Anonymous
Every few years, there's a wave of "bisexual chic"—bisexual characters increase in the movies and on TV, magazine articles are written, celebrities come out. The last few months have brought another one of these periods of high visibility for bisexuals in the U.S. and around the world. Fergie, Lady Gaga, Anna Panquin, Vanessa Carlton, Duncan James, and others have come out as bisexual. Hit TV shows like Bones, House, The Good Wife, and (returning in 2011 - HURRAY!!!) Torchwood, all have prominant bisexual characters.
While all this attention can result in many advantages for the bisexual community (and is much preferred to the bisexual erasure that occurs all too often) it can also resurrect the many myths out there that distort the image of bisexuals in both the straight and gay/lesbian community. Since this weekend is the 10th International BiCon in the UK, I thought this might be a good time to update and republish an article I did a couple of years ago for GLBT and Friends at DailyKos.
So let's explore together (and with my apologies to David Letterman):
The Top Ten Myths About Bisexuality!
Myth #10 – There is no such thing as bisexuality.
Oh, the damage just one well-publicized, faulty study can do. In 2005, a study of bisexuality in males was published by Psychological Science and later lauded by The New York Times as lending "support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation." Never mind that the methodology of both the study and the article had numerous and serious problems. Never mind that neither the study nor the article mentioned the chief author's controversial history. The damage was done and bisexuals have been trying to undo it ever since.
Mythbuster – Bisexuality has been a recognized, distinct classification of sexual orientation since 1892. The most common definition is "a feeling of attraction for both men and women, although not necessarily to the same degree." You'll notice this definition says feeling and not behavior. It's a rose Bi any other name. Back Bi popular demand. We're just getting Bi. (OK, I have to stop before I hurt myself.)
Myth #9 – Bisexuality is a new thing.
For some, bisexuals rose like Venus on a clamshell during the sexual revolution in the early 1970s. For others, the study mentioned in Myth #10 resulted in many bisexuals coming out loud and proud in 2005. As a result, much of the media coverage has treated bisexuality like it's a new, semi-hip phenomenon.
Mythbuster – Bisexuality has been described in cultures from ancient Greece and the pre-Columbian Americas to shogunate Japan and pre-Cook Hawaii. It's not the feelings that are new, it's the way they are being described. Maybe bisexuals should start wearing shirts that read, "We're here. We're queer. We have history!"
Myth #8 – Bisexuality is a fetish behavior.
Bisexuality is often thought of as a behavior, rather than a sexual orientation—something to be experimented with in your youth (or your mid-life crisis), like wearing rubber underwear or going to Burning Man. Some of the responsibility for this misinformation comes directly from the conservative Christian right, who try to define anything other than vanilla-bean heterosexuality as "choice". But much of the media-perpetuation of this myth comes from "flex sex" celebrities who have publicly recanted their bisexuality.
Mythbuster – According to a long-term sexuality study done by The Glasgow and Edinburgh Research Workshop, 87% of participants who identified as bisexual in their teens and 20s, continued to identify as bisexual in their 40s and 50s. Unless bisexuality is addictive (like smoking or Krispy Kreme) that's a looooong time to "experiment" with a behavior.
Myth #7 – Bisexuals are mentally unstable.
Ah, the bisexual "serial killer" phenomenon. Although media portrayals are getting better, there is still the lingering notion that mentally unstable bisexuals are roaming the streets, intent on wreaking havoc. In an article for American Sexuality Magazine, author Amy Andre writes:
"Most movies with bi characters paint a stereotypical picture: the unlucky, unsuspecting, hetero or gay person falls for the bisexual bon vivant, and all hell breaks loose. The bi love interest is usually deceptive (Mulholland Drive), over-sexed (Sex Monster), unfaithful (High Art), and fickle (Three of Hearts), and might even be a serial killer, like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. In other words, the bisexual is always the cause of the conflict in the film."
Mythbuster – Although bisexuals are more likely than straight or gay people to develop mental health problems this is more due to the unique stressors involved in the social pressures of having a different sexual orientation to the majority than bisexuality itself. The American Psychological Association maintains that "a significant portion of homosexual and bisexual people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation and showed no signs of psychopathology." So give me a hug, I won't hurt you. (Unless you're into that sort of thing and then...um...we'll talk.)
Myth #6 – Bisexuals lie about their sexuality.
This myth is related to #7 and probably the most common portrayal of bisexuals in the media. The bisexual man who lies to his wife. The bisexual woman who lies to her lesbian partner. The bisexual...whoever...who claims to be an ex-gay. It's one of the most popular themes of the exploitation talk-show circuit and for good reason—because technically, there are aspects of this myth that are true.
Mythbuster (sort of) – As everyone in the GLBT community knows, the process of coming out can be very difficult. For most people, there is confusion, missteps, more confusion, and backslides. As a result, many GLBTs have been less than honest about their sexuality at one time or another. But while gay men "struggle" and lesbians are "confused" (sympathetic terms), bisexuals are often portrayed as "lying". Add to this is the teen trend of straight girls pretending to be bisexual (also called "Facebook Bisexuality" and recently portrayed on an episode of Glee) and it all starts to become a big game of Who Do You Trust? When all is said and done, bisexuals are trying to find their way just like everyone else.
The unity of the human spirit is a powerful force because it is that which connects us despite our vast differences. United States culture is making the gradual movement towards recognizing that same spirit of humanity for LGBTQ people that has been lacking for too many years. Despair can set in at times when we see major setbacks such as the successful passage of proposition 8 in California, or the news of another LGBTQ person being the victim of a hate crime. Despite all of the pain our society has and still does put us through we must never give up our resolve to see the United States government finally rid itself of every last vestige of institutionalized homophobia and transphobia.
It is a lasting legacy of a civil rights struggle that future students of history will read about in textbooks of this nation. In the future, no longer will Harvey Milk, Dan Choi, Bayard Rustin, or Billie Jean King be left out of the discussion as they too will be recognized in a more broad manner for the work they did for this nation. Inclusion of the LGBTQ community continues to become stronger with each passing year because of our activism. Coming out is a strong way we continue to strengthen this movement so that the tide of history continues towards the favor of justice, equality, and freedom under our laws. Hopefully more public figures in all areas of our society will make the choice to live as who they are out loud.
Our collective hope for a better future in which there is no government sanctioned discrimination against our people is what keeps us going. Although we have not always won the local, state, and national battles for our rights it has created a dialogue. Our country can never go back to where it was even two years ago in light of the change in tone and content of the discourse on civil rights in this country. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender is being seen by greater numbers of Americans as just another person who deserves all of the same rights and benefits as everyone else. This hope is what keeps our dedication as LGBTQ and Heterosexual allies solid because we know with every fiber of our being we stand on the right side of history.
By having a meaningful discussion about social policies such as DADT, ENDA, UAFA, and so on it causes a broader societal discourse about the state of human rights in the United States as well as abroad. Can we effectively condemn other nations engaging in horrific human rights violations against their LGBTQ citizens when we don't treat LGBTQ people at home equally? The definitive answer to that question is no because the United States abandons the moral authority to decry such things when DOMA and DADT remain the law of the land. Thus, domestic based bigotry through government sanctioned discrimination harms the United States' credibility on basic human rights issues regarding foreign policies abroad.
These injustices which harm people simply on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are what can motivate and empower us to make a difference. Each news story which speaks to the heartbreaking discharge of another Gay solider in the military brings this into focus. We must channel our righteous indignation into a collective movement that finally pushes us past the tipping point we find ourselves at right now. By telling our stories as we reach out to friends, family, and the broader community we empower ourselves further to be a part of this historic push to knock down these remaining walls to basic civil and human rights in the United States. Empowerment is a means to the end of attaining our collective goal: equal rights.
Finally, when it comes to the issue of marriage equality, it really is about love. Those who continue to staunchly oppose our full equality including President Obama must understand this means they oppose love. Love is a positive foundation of society that stands in stark contrast to the hatred that so often is ingrained in the rhetoric of anti-marriage equality advocates. The fact that so many people still do not see it this way is a testament to how far we have to go, but we will get there. We must have confidence in knowing that what we are fighting for is nothing less then the ability to love and to have our love recognized equally in the eyes of the federal government as Heterosexual couples already do.
Love, hope, and empowerment are three powerful components to remind yourself of everyday because they are what can sustain your spirit in the face of tough obstacles. We must know and internalize these components as activists for the LGBTQ civil rights movement while we enter another phase of this through greater public support. Change can sometimes move very slowly, and this is why we are here: to speed that process up. Year by year our activism continues to pay off in the march to recognize the civil rights of LGBTQ Americans. Remember that through all of the difficult times we have yet to face that each brick we knock out of the wall of discrimination brings us ever closer to knocking it down.
A recent study from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) found that 67 percent of LGBT inmates report being sexually assaulted by another inmate, a rate 15 times higher than the overall prison population. Another study by UC Irvine and commissioned by CDCR found that 69 percent of transgender inmates reported sexual victimization while incarcerated.
Dateline Memphis: The Duanna Johnson Case
Four months after a hung jury in the case of the beating of Duanna Johnson, Memphis police office Bridges McRae plead guilty to violating her civil rights. This will not bring any closure to Ms. Johnson or her family since she was murdered 9 months after the beating. That case has not yet been solved.
Apparently protection after being arrested is indeed necessary.
New Leaf, a community organization serving LGBT people in San Francisco will be closing October 15 (press release (pdf), since the city can no longer afford to fund the program due to increases in rent and the cost of health care. The program provided mental health care, substance abuse services, and HIV/AIDS support services.
The Ah Kua Show is a one-woman collage of experiences on the difficulties of being transsexual in Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Bangkok. "Ah Kua" is a derogatory reference to transwomen, roughly translating to ladyboy
For anyone who would like to learn more about Leona, she has a blog here.
Personally, I have a soft place in my heart for multi-talented people.
Muncie, Indiana: Erin Vaught, transgender woman who was basically denied medical treatment after being ridiculed at the ER by the staff of Ball Memorial Hospital in Muncie, IN says she is satisifed with the changes that have been promised by that institution.
Ball Memorial Hospital announced Tuesday that all employees would receive mandatory lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender awareness training starting in September and that it was updating its nondiscrimination policies to include language specific to sexual orientation and gender identity.
Simply put, we failed to live up to our brand promise of care in regards to Erin and we apologize to her for that.
In the last month, I have heard from many team members who share my disappointment with Erin's experience at BMH.
--Ball Memorial President Michael Haley
My goal from the outset was to try to make sure that my experience wasn't repeated.
The day after Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8 in California, President Obama asked his aide David Axelrod to go on television and make a statement. He wanted to make sure everyone in the country is fully aware of the fact that the President of the United States "opposes same sex marriage." His stance on the issue is interesting: he opposes allowing gays to get married and call it a marriage, favoring instead the government's discriminatory banning of marriage to gays and lesbians, but with the caveat that another institution, civil unions, should be used instead. However, he supports Judge Walker's decision.
Walker's decision in overturning Prop. 8 argued forcefully against President Obama's stance. Walker noted that denial of the word marriage is harmful to the gay community. This is important, because, even before dealing with the issue of the discrepancy between the rights that marriage affords and the rights that civil unions/domestic partnerships afford, Walker clearly noted that the word marriage itself has certain social connotations which make it an essential and fundamental right for all Americans who wish to participate in our society. Denying marriage to a group means denying entry into society; it means denial of full acceptance of the contributions and importance of gay Americans' participation in the country. That's not constitutional.
Walker then noted that creating a separate (but sort-of-in-some-ways-equal) institution for gays who wish to marry, in order to placate bigots who don't wish to see gays married at all, is a stigmatizing concept which devalues us. And that the propagation of that "newly created right" as a valid alternative is not only inaccurate, since it doesn't allow all of the same rights as marriage, but it's legally untenable.
How President Obama can say he supports Judge Walker's decision, I do not understand. It is a complete, beautiful, awe-inspiring repudiation of the beliefs of people like President Obama. And President Obama himself has never been particularly forthcoming on the marriage issue. He himself said in his book The Audacity of Hope:
And I was reminded that it is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society’s prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus’ call to love on another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.
We don't elect a President just to run the Executive branch and be the Commander-in-Chief. We'd like to see him or her stand up for what is right. To speak out against hatred and bigotry, and for equality and justice.
The world has changed Mr. President. Civil unions are so 2008. They no longer, if they ever did, represent equality and they never will again. It's the dawn of a new decade, where nothing short of full equality will do.
So, Barack Obama, 'Come Out'.
* Come out in support of equality.
* Come out in support of the 14th amendment, for equal protection under the law.
* Come out in favor of the pursuit of happiness.
* Come out so that those who look to you can no longer say their President believes in "separate but equal".
They no longer represent equality. Truer words were never spoken. Civil unions were created in the eighties as an acceptable alternative for gay couples, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, in the wake of Harvey Milk's death and in the decades after Stonewall. No longer are we considered a small group of fringe radical activists. Now we're an enormous group of radical activists and we're growing by the day.
Judge Walker, a supposed gay man, issued a ruling in favor of gay people. California newspapers decided to out Walker, repeatedly, through innuendo and rumors in order to, they claim, be fair. I'm not one who has a huge problem with outing people when they vote or rule against gay rights, but this seems strange to me. The claims of "relevancy" are not reality based in any way because the people claiming his orientation is relevant do not like the ruling. If they couldn't use his orientation to show their dislike of the ruling, it'd be something else. Showing "fairness" to bigots who aren't operating in truth doesn't foster a good discussion.
As Rush Limbaugh said of President Obama, the bigots want Judge Walker to fail. Why do you think there's a sudden debate over firing pro-gay judges? It's gotten so intense that former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has decided to discuss the subject in an upcoming panel. Their claims should be mocked and summarily dismissed, and this is why: they have not yet attacked the ruling itself. Where's their legal analysis which proves their ruling entirely incorrect? They did offer one point, that Baker v. Nelson should be controlling precedent. That is easily demolished, even by someone without a law degree:
So, in 1986, the Supreme Court decided Bowers v. Hardwick In that case they determined that there is no constitutional right to sodomy (i.e., same sex sexual intercourse can be criminalized.) Justice Stevens and others joined in a dissent by Justice Blackmun (fun fact: that dissent was written by Pam Karlan.) In 1996, the Supreme Court decided Romer v. Evans, in which they said that animus toward gay people and dislike of gay people is not a rational basis for laws against gays. They did not overrule Bowers in that case because doing so would eliminate one of the justifications for same sex marriage - that you can dislike gay people and effectively punish them by allowing criminalization of their behavior to continue to be constitutional.
In 2003, Lawrence v. Texas was decided at the Supreme Court. They overturned bans on sodomy, overruled Bowers, finally, seventeen years after it was decided, and blasted away another reason for denying same sex marriage. They said that morality is not a suitable rational basis to deprive rights to homosexuals.
In his dissent, as I wrote about before, Justice Antonin Scalia freaked out. He ranted and screamed and begged for a whole bunch of pages. He said that the Court keeps eliminating reasons that they've always held that marriage is between a man and a woman. He said that we've always made laws based on morality and that it's totally fine to ban sodomy based on morality. He said that gay people are politically powerful (translation: please, oh please god, don't let the Court apply a stricter standard of review to gay people) and he wondered aloud why our behavior can't be criminalized. He yelled at the other Justices for, basically, not distinguishing between gay people and couples in their decision, which was written by Justice Kennedy. The decision also noted a history of discrimination against gay people, but was pretty conservative on the history of that.
Of course, shortly after Lawrence was decided, conservatives started an "impeach Kennedy" movement that fizzled out quickly.
Then, just this past year, in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court makes clear that there is no distinction between gay people and homosexual acts. This is the final and most obvious thing blocking gays from being considered a suspect class entitled to a higher level of constitutional review. You simply have to be a class in the first place. Along with that, a history of discrimination needs to be present, and you need to show that you're not politically powerful.
The Supreme Court has itself obliterated any reason not to hear this marriage case.
And the legal precedents since Baker are only one reason it shouldn't be controlling. I won't get into the others here because that is sufficient. The truth is, I firmly believe that if they had arguments to make, they'd make them. Answering a public, humiliating defeat in court with "yeah well, you're gay!" is just juvenile. But they don't have a better response.
I'm not even going to approach this issue as relevant in any way and I wish others would use this same tactic. The people who are against us are not up for a debate on the merits. They just want to lie and smear their way into a victory in the public sphere. The sad and funny thing is, given recent polling data, they're even failing there where, as David Boies noted, you don't have to bother with a legal argument. You can just say things out loud and it becomes a fact you won't have to prove. They have not proved the legal relevance of Walker's orientation, nor have they proved the legal arguments of their own case. Can we ignore them now?
Ken Mehlman's process of coming out of the closet certainly has stirred the troops. People are enraged by his previous politics. Some believe he has to apologize for a litany of past positions before he can be accepted into the greater LGBT community. Others have welcomed him and his vast network of contacts that he now brings to this community. What is clear is that everyone has an opinion.
There are really important facts to remember as the community comes to terms with its latest out member:
-Coming Out has been and continues to be the most important political action that a person can take in our epic struggle. Every time an individual finds the courage to come out to his family, friends and public, it creates a ripple effect that increases the hope for us all.
-No one should ever be discouraged from Coming Out nor punished for it.
-For years we have been saying, "We Are Everywhere" and this certainly proves the case.
-We are not a membership organization where someone has to meet criteria either socially or politically for entrance.
-The purpose of a movement is to change minds. Look at the shift in public opinion in the last few years. We should accept those who have opposed us in the past and use their talents and gifts.
-Finally, no one has to approve, accept nor be quiet about another person's political beliefs or actions in their past. That is the essence of free speech. You don't have to like them personally, have to sleep with them, approve of their dog or cat nor invite them to dinner.
Like Ted Olson taking the Proposition 8 Court Case, Ken Melhman's coming out process is bound to create a rippled effect. Just look at the names on the fundraiser that he has organized to support marriage equality and the American Foundation for Equal Rights Proposition 8 Court Case.. Do we want to make it impossible for all conservatives to come out for marriage equality? Do we want to shun all people whose policies of the past we personally disagree? Who gets to decide who is acceptable and who is not?
Did you know that Prop 8 drafter and lawyer, Andrew Pugno is running for California State Assembly District 05? Who is this Andrew Pugno? Well read this from the Sacramento Stonewall Democrats:
Pugno drafted Proposition 8 to insert discriminatory language into the highest law of the land, our State Constitution. If he could be successful at making this change, then no court in California could argue with this discriminatory policy. Pugno, along with the folks at protectmarriage.com, the National Organization for Marriage, and political consultant Frank Schubert created a massive campaign fueled by money from churches and fear-mongering ads.
However, according to a recent poll, Dr. Richard Pan, democratic challenger to republican Andrew Pugno has a 10 point lead in the traditionally republican California assembly district 05 (Sacramento area).
I'm sorry cooper, what did you just say? Pan has a chance to turn this district?
A fresh survey of the race for the area’s Assembly District 5 seat finds Democrat Dr. Richard Pan pulling ahead of his opponent Republican Andy Pugno once voters learn more about the candidates.
“Our survey finds the race begins in a statistical tie, with Dr. Pan moving to a 10-point lead over opponent Andy Pugno after voters hear both positive and negative messages about the candidates,” said Ben Tulchin of San Francisco-based Tulchin Research. “While the race starts very close, our survey shows Dr. Pan is well positioned for victory in November.”
Wow! Incredible news! But how can this be?
For the past few decades AD5 has been a safe Republican seat with a strong Republican voter registration advantage. Since 2000 those registration numbers have been eroding and now the district is divided equally between registered Democrats and registered Republicans. The Target Book and political pundits no longer view AD5 as a safe Republican seat, but now consider the District one of the most hotly contested legislative races in the state. Recent polling also demonstrates that this race will be extremely close.
Well hot diggity dog, that's good enough for me, ActBlue here I come! But wait.. hold on a second, who is this Dr. Pan?
Richard Pan is a physician and an educator at the UC Davis Children’s Hospital, with a commitment to community service. He believes that a healthy community needs a strong local economy, good schools and access to quality healthcare. Pan aims to bring a new perspective to the state Assembly by working to fix the broken system, improve our schools and reduce health care costs for families and businesses.
Okay, okay, he sounds like a good guy but what about Pugno?
“Our research shows that Pugno is too extreme for this district, which puts Richard Pan in a very strong position to win in November,” said Josh Pulliam, Pan’s campaign consultant.
But the Stonewall Democrats must have more to say about him? Oh yeah, read on...
Well it turns out Pugno's home is not in Assembly District 5, it is in District 10!
California law clearly states that candidates for Assembly must live within and be registered to vote within the district they seek to represent. When confronted about this glaring problem, Pugno's spokesperson had little more to say than YOU CAUGHT US!
He told Capitol Weekly:
"Andy has bought a house in the 5th and they were supposed to move this morning. He will be moving in very shortly," Rexroad said. "He has been trying to get into a house for a while and the one he was originally settled on basically fell through based on the seller."
This carpetbagger thinks he can waltz into Assembly District 5 with a boatload of money he made off of hating gay people and get elected to the Assembly.
The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.
-- Galadriel
The President of the United States, who in 2008 promised to be a fierce advocate for LGBT equal rights, is now one of the single biggest obstacles to that goal. Not because he is opposed to (almost all of) those rights. That's not it at all.
But because of his unparalleled stature, his very public opposition to equal marriage rights has resulted in him becoming the most prominent bastion of non-religious-wacko support for the fairy tale position that "separate is equal".
As David Axelrod, the President's advisor, put it immediately after Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v Schwarzenegger:
The President does oppose same-sex marriage... but...
To quote no one specifically, but likely millions of Americans' thoughts who aren't paying much attention to this issue but do pick up the phone when pollers call:
If the President doesn't believe in full equality, why should I?"
In fact Proposition 8 Proponents' Attorneys cite the President's opposition to equal marriage rights as a major point in their appeal to the Ninth Circuit -- as to why their (once-failed) case against equality has merit!
When the President speaks, people listen -- even the Ninth Circuit, or so at least the Prop 8 attorneys thought (a stay, as requested by the appeal, was granted without any explanation, so we have no idea whether this argument got actual consideration. Still.).
Let's put this in perspective. The President of the United States, the leader of the Democratic Party and a scholar of constitutional law, is now to the right of a near-majority of the US population AND
Dick Cheney, Republican former Vice President: "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.
Cindy McCain, wife of Senator John McCain: "marriage equality isn't a Republican issue any more than it is a Democratic issue."
Ken Mehlman, former RNC Chairman: "wants to become an advocate for gay marriage"
Elizabeth Hasselbeck, right-wing co-host of the television show The View: "I actually support gay marriage."
Glen Beck, right-wing Fox News television show host: "I don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with...that is a religious right."
Just a day after former RNC Chair Ken "hahaha look how many marriage bans I imposed" Mehlman came out of his cushy and safe bubblecloset, he went directly to The Advocate for an interview on his coming out experience. Having read that gay news site for years, I expected a little more out of that interview. The first question was:
Tell me about how you got involved with this fundraiser you’re putting together to help support the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8.
Then:
I know you’re focused on the fundraiser right now, but do you have your sights set on any other LGBT issues that you really want to work on moving forward?
There are certainly ways to ask pointed questions without having him call off the interview. I'm not asking them to be rude or anything. Those of us who were directly harmed to the point of mental illness by this guy's election tactics might just kind of prefer a gay news website to be a bit more on the side of its gay readers and a bit less on the side of people like this guy who never had to do anything he didn't feel like doing.
Then, when they did manage to sneak in two rather uncomfortable questions, Ken wanted all the whiners to know that his life is hard and that we should just shut up and take what we can get. Instead of offering apologies, this happened:
There’s a lot of gays and lesbians and other people who are still angry about the 2004 election and the fact that that those 11 amendments were on the ballot. Is there anything that you would like to say about that in particular? Look, I have a lot of friends who ask questions and who are angry about it. I understand that folks are angry, I don’t know that you can change the past. As I’ve said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn’t in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can’t change that – it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.
But I understand the anger and I talk to friends about it – it’s something that I hear from a number of friends.
He doesn't know that you can change the past. I don't know that changing the past is what we're after. He also says that he regrets that he wasn't in a position to be against that strategy. However, no mention of the fact that he had no right to be for that strategy in the first place. Does being a closeted gay man justify his participation in anti-gay campaigns? Is he going to use the Roy Ashburn defense, that he so wanted to appear straight that he had absolutely no way to change and buck the party's evil conservative anti-gay hate? No, no he's not.
After a bizarre back-and-forth about whether or not Mehlman was uncomfortable during the anti-gay campaign (his anti-gay campaign) there's this:
Do you think it’s particularly difficult on the conservative side to do this, to come out? I have found that my friends and former colleagues – and they are friends, people I worked in the campaign with and the White House – have been wonderful and incredibly supportive and have been encouraging. So I blame me that it took me 43 years – it had nothing to do with political philosophy.
Their political philosophy didn't stop him from coming out because it's a philosophy of opportunism. They don't really hate gays just as they don't really hate brown people. It's just a wedge issue to Ken Mehlman. After all this, after all the people who lived in fear and continue to do so, we find out that Ken was able to come out to his conservative friends with no problem. And he doesn't give a crap about what whiny faggots like us went through because he doesn't have to. He won't even get pestered by a gay news magazine.
By late 2004, I was out of my parents’ house. I’d just barely gotten the hell out of there not even a full year before. And I was happy to leave. Flash back two years to 2002. By that time, 9/11 had happened, yet instead of going after Osama bin Laden everyone was discussing war with Iraq. You know this already. I lived with my very conservative, very religious family. And they were all ready to blow the fuck out of some innocents. Needless to say, they didn’t like it when I became very active against the war. They didn’t like that I talked about it all the time. They didn’t like when I’d go to school wearing pins and stickers saying "How many Iraqis per gallon?" and other slogans.
I’m telling you this so you know I was already on their bad side. My stepdad hated me. I mean that. He actually hated me. He threatened to kill me… but we’ll get to that later. At the time, he was just mad because I’m a crippled intellectual type instead of a "manly" man who goes out and does yard work all day.
Flash forward a year, I outed myself as gay.
Actually, I didn’t even really out myself as gay to my parents. I’m not that stupid. No, instead, I wrote a letter to a friend telling them all about it because it was killing me. I couldn’t keep it in anymore. Well, the pillow your head sleeps on at night is not a good hiding place for a letter, it turns out. My stepdad came home drunk the night I wrote it, and it had slipped out of the pillow. He read it.
From that point on, until I moved out, my life was hell. I couldn’t tolerate anything. I’d just gotten paralyzed a year and a half before this happened, you know? I spent an entire year just making my family feel better about my paralysis. I had to work to get them through my problems. I’d subsequently lost all my friends post-paralysis, except those who were friends with me through my cousin. I lost my friends because my paralysis made some of them "question God". It made others just plain uncomfortable around me.
Anyway, I had a rough time. My mother informed me that I was not "allowed" to "be that way" in her home. She asked how I could do that to God. She said she didn’t know if she could love me the same. My stepdad, who hated me enough already, openly called me queer and faggot all the time. Just to try to get under my skin. Then he threatened to kill me. I left some dirty clothes on the floor. He said if I ever did it again I wouldn’t wake up in the morning. When he and mom fought, he’d threaten to leave her, and he’d always mention I "thought I was queer".
My conservative Republican parents bought into all the anti-gay lies. They believed every bit of propaganda they ever heard. They listened to Limbaugh and others who were boldly discussing their hatred for gays.
By 2003, gay people had started to become a wedge issue. This was while I still lived at home. In fear of being killed. All alone and friendless. With no support. And then these people in this Republican party started to demonize gays. This was discussed in our household – before and after the outing incident. My parents called around asking about different mental hospitals or "conversion camps" where she could send me to change or just disappear. Eventually, when she started getting return phone calls, I told her it was a phase. Who wouldn’t?
I was stuck in my home, living in fear of my parents. Sitting with them, tensely watching some Republican politicians and party leaders talk about how disgusting gays are. Listening to my parents talk about how right Falwell and Dobson were to blame 9/11 on the fags and women. This was what my teenage life was like.
And you know I owe it to people like Ken Mehlman. This guy helped engineer the vicious anti-gay campaign that started sometime around 2003, so it could be fully developed by the 2004 election in which eleven or so marriage amendments passed in states. In 2006, another crop of amendments passed, including in my state, Alabama. This guy didn’t back off from using fear-based rhetoric. He didn’t tone any of his words or his mailers down. He and his party were as disgusting as ever and they hurt people. I spent so many years of my life being scared, not of what someone might think, but of actual death. At the very least, actual hospitalization for something that did not deserve it.
I didn’t start coming out to most people til I was twenty. And not to my parents (again) til I was twenty-one. I couldn’t, though. I live in a conservative area. I was going through all of this during a time when people were stoking the dangerous fears of uneducated and ignorant people. Hate crimes increased. After I finally moved out, a kid was killed about fifteen minutes from where I live just for being gay. I knew people brave enough to come out in high school who had their cars and houses trashed on a regular basis. When gay people talk about coming out of the closet, it’s not all easy or safe.
To hear Ken Mehlman tell it, though, all he needed was a direct phone call to the former President of the United States, and a press team to field inquiries about his revelation. Mehlman will never have to face the consequences I had to face. Or others whose fate was much worse. People died for this. People were tortured for this. The guy who was killed near me? He was beaten, stabbed and burned to death by "friends" who lived with him.
While I’m glad that Mehlman has had such a good time with his coming out, and while I await his best-selling book, the profits of which will no doubt never fill the coffers of pro-gay organizations, it is not the same for all of us. And our pain and our struggles can be directly linked to his actions. And he doesn’t care. He offers no sympathy, no apology.
He, like any other Republican, is not in the business of identifying with everyday Americans. He’s not interested in connecting with us, nor is he interested in hearing what hurts us. They live inside a bubble in which the only thing that matters is their self-interest. They are out of touch. He risked nothing coming out. He was never in any real danger. In fact, it’s probably only opportunism which is causing him to come out now. He’s probably being paid handsomely by the GOP to make them look more gay friendly, after they learned that the electorate is increasingly gay friendly.
These people are monsters who just don’t give a fuck about you. They never have, they never will. I’ll stand by the real LGBT community’s side against people like him every day of my life.
Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by
From Gender Development, by Susan Golombok and Robyn Fyvush (1994):
"Kohlberg argued that the major developmental task facing children is coming to understand that gender is constant and cannot be changed regardless of surface features. Based on extensive interviews with young children, he posited that children develop through three stages in coming to understand gender. At the very beginning, children do not use gender to categorize themselves or others at all…essentially, they do not have any understanding that gender is an unchanging characteristic of an individual.
At about 2 years of age, children enter stage 1, called gender identity. Children are now able to label themselves and others consistently as female or male, but they base this categorization on physical [???-Ed] characteristics [length of hair, attire, etc-Ed]. If these superficial physical characteristics change, then gender changes as well. At about 3 to 4 years, children move into stage 2, called gender stability. They now understand that if one is a female or male at the present time, then one was a female or male earlier in life and will remain a female or male later in life. Little girls will grow up to be mommys and not daddys and little boys will grow up to be daddys and not mommys. Thus stage 2 children understand that gender is stable across time. However, they do not yet understand that gender is stable across situations. If a male engages in female-typed activities, such as doll play, stage 2 children believe the male might change into a female. It is only at about age 5 when children progress to stage 3, called gender constancy, that they understand that gender is constant across time and situations. Now children claim that gender will not change regardless of the clothes worn or the activities engaged in. They have come to understand that gender is an underlying, unchanging aspect of an identity.
Research has confirmed that children do indeed progress through Kohlberg's three stages of understanding the concept of gender…"
A funny thing happened as I was growing up. I didn't achieve gender constancy. I don't believe in gender stability. And I have a different definition of gender identity.
I exist. I have grown up. There are ten's of thousands of people like me. Am I a failure at life if I don't believe that gender is constant over time and situation? Have I failed to grow up? To hear that I have failed at what is "the major developmental task facing children" is quite disheartening. Maybe I need to go back and give it another try.
Obviously, I think there's something wrong with this picture. So what's the problem? I suppose it could be that Kohlberg was just plain wrong, but then what about the research? It may be that Kohlberg's research and the research of many who have come behind him hasn't allowed for the existence of people like me. It may be that Kohlberg's theory is correct as far as it goes, but that it does not apply to everyone. Or it may be that our society refuses to accommodate people like me. Or, possibly, it may be that some people do go through those stages of development, but later de-evolve their gender.
First off, Kohlberg and the many researchers who have come after, indeed most of society, believe in the equation "gender = sex." It's not difficult to see why this happens. If the researchers are correct that children learn that the equation is inviolable, then those researchers must believe in gender constancy themselves. Hence one might think that they would tend to disbelieve any evidence to the contrary. Belief in gender constancy must color the questions that interviewers ask children. But even if the questions did allow for us, it is doubtful that people like me would register in any studies, since our existence is generally hidden from young children. Much of society sees us as something "unclean." I don't register in a child's consciousness as anything but a fairy tale.
Yesterday was like a flashback from a bad political acid trip.
United States Marine Commandant James Conway, who is doing his best to undercut "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", suggested that there might have to be separate barracks for homosexual troops. In one swift moment, the commandant transported me back 17 years to 1993. In fact, this entire process is beginning to look like a repeat performance of 1993.
Trust me, that is not good news.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton, caught in a firestorm the first month of his presidency, called for six months of 'study and review' in order to placate the military and to hopefully build support for allowing gays in the military. Under the ample leadership of now deceased Tom Stoddard, the "Campaign for Military Service" was formed to support the President with such strong backers as David Geffen, Barry Diller, Bob Shrum, Marylouise Oates, Greg Craig and so many others. By March, the President led by Senator Sam Nunn visited the USS Roosevelt and allowed himself to be pulled into the tight living quarters on the ship. In a notorious front page picture, Nunn made his bigoted, Neanderthal point that homosexuals and straights could not share these quarters.
Clinton then suggested segregated living quarters for homosexual troops and received a firestorm of protest. Meanwhile, the military leaders and people like Sam Nunn used this 'study and review' period to build up pressure that led to DADT.
I guess it's all a matter of how you define "core," Brian. He's desperately trying to spin former RNC head and Bush campaign honcho Ken Mehlman's coming out as both insignificant and minimizing the history of the GOP in fomenting anti-gay efforts in past political cycles. (The Advocate):
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, told The Advocate that Mehlman was "abdicating core Republican beliefs" in his support for AFER's legal effort in challenging Prop. 8. "But it's never been about the leaders. It's always been about the people, based on an overwhelming majority of Republican voters -- 85, 86 percent -- who support marriage as a union between a man and a woman," he said. "That a few folks within the Republican Party are questioning a party platform and have personal positions on same-sex marriage is a reality of political parties. [Mehlman] is no longer a major party leader, so I don't know how influential he is, to be honest with you."
Marriage equality advocates, Brown said, are using high-profile conservatives now supporting marriage equality -- from Ted Olson to vice president Dick Cheney -- in order to "create an impression that there is an inevitability to same-sex marriage. The facts strongly go against that idea."
Brown asserted that the RNC played a limited role in rallying the anti-gay marriage vote during the 2004 presidential elections, when Mehlman served as Bush-Cheney campaign manager. Eleven states passed constitutional amendments banning marriage rights for same-sex couples that year, including Ohio, which gave Bush a margin of victory over Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
"These [amendments] were pushed by people on the state level," Brown said. "The whole notion that it was some top-down, Machiavellian ploy by the Republican Party is a farce."
Come on, Brian, you need Maggie to help you out with a better line of spin. As Mike Signorile pointed out to WorldNetDaily's unraveling Joseph Farah on the air, those polls on marriage equality are basically 50/50 and moving in the wrong direction from the fundie POV, so using that as the fig leaf for continuing the "save marriage" movement isn't going to last much longer.
Everyone who’s gay has their own coming out experience. Mine wasn’t good. Today, former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman came out and shared his story. I’ve talked to plenty of people, though, who endured no homophobia and were accepted by all their friends and family. No matter what the result is, the process is terrifying, often humiliating, and leads to unnecessary pain. I’m confident that this is true of every coming out experience. LGBT people are the only group who has to "confess" their differences from the majority of society, and it unquestionably takes a toll, no matter how necessary it is.
The closet seems like a safe haven from bigotry but it’s just an excuse to prolong bigotry. Not to mention, when everyone stays closeted it plays right into conservative fantasies that LGBT people are a fringe group who are secretive and trying to destroy the values of this country. That is why any discussion of gays as a covert group is unhelpful. Take this for example:
WEST POINT, N.Y. — Code words, secret societies, covert meetings, fake identities: these are tools that a certain set of cadets learn here at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
These cadets are not spies or moles. They are gay, and they exist largely in the shadows of this granite institution known for producing presidents and generals, where staying closeted is essential to avoid discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Speaking of gay people’s desire to not be killed, harmed, abandoned, harassed or worse is not something to try to be clever about. The closet can kill you. If it doesn’t, your coming out experience could. If that doesn’t, well, you still can’t get married or have job protections. If you’re gay, you’re at risk no matter what you do and you always have to be aware of that from day one. The most carefree gay person knows how to hide or use genderless pronouns just as well as those who aren’t so happy.
These codes and this closet are a construct invented to marginalize gay people. To stigmatize us. There is no other purpose. Proponents can talk about "safety" and making sure the gays are not attacked (the supposed rationale for DADT) but it all comes down to the fact that the privileged in society feel more comfortable when they don’t have to think about us. When they don’t have to deal with our issues. And so what if it’s painful? So what if it causes stress or suicidal tendencies among gays? It serves the ends they want: making the privileged more comfortable.
Here’s what the closet is like:
There are code words and test phrases: “Are you family?” refers to inclusion in the lesbian sisterhood. Or cadets might throw out references to the television show “The L Word” to gauge the response.
An encounter during military maneuvers might result in flirtatious Facebook messaging back in the barracks. Those who earn weekend passes might make late-night runs to gay bars in Manhattan, about 50 miles away, or to gay parties on nearby college campuses, often with students they met through intercollegiate sports.
And don’t ever fall in love. Ever. You can’t think about love and intimacy and closeness:
The male cadet in his fourth year said he had had sexual relationships with several other men at the academy. Last year, he fell for a guy at a gay bar in Manhattan who, to the surprise of both of them, turned out to be a classmate.
Back on campus, they enjoyed and suffered through a seven-month relationship on the “down low,” he said. They might share a meal at Grant Hall, but if they passed each other in company, they would simply nod hello or offer a casual back-slap. They did not attend the year-end formal dance together.
First and foremost, the LGBT struggle is one of the great civil rights movement of our times. Given that, quite honestly, there is simply no logical personal or political reason for President Obama to be against marriage equality. At this stage there can only be two conclusions: that he is a political coward or that he does indeed hold prejudice against LGBT citizens. Nothing else fits at this stage. No one can make any more excuses and no one can justify his position any longer. Looking at the facts, the statistics, the political reality and at the President's current position one can only say "Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you."
This weekend two factors forced me to focus on his lack of leadership on this issue. One was a brilliant article in the New Republic by Richard Just entitled simply "Disgrace" and the other was a chart published in The New York Times showing the massive change in support across the country for marriage equality. Combine that with a recent CNN poll that showed 52% of Americans believe now that marriage equality is a Constitutional Right and you see how ridiculous his position has become before the public.
The President should look to his fellow Democrats for courage. Overwhelmingly, Democrats now support marriage equality. If you look at the New York Times Marriage Chart you will see a state by state breakdown on the increasing support for parity. Look at the entire chart and you will see states like West Virginia support for marriage equality has grown in 15 years from 21% to 41%. Seventeen states now support marriage equality by greater than 50%! Another 13 states support it with margins of greater than 40% with most of those above 45%! Of the remaining 20 states, Obama only carried 2 of those states and 12 of those 20 are in the deep South or border states. Can the political facts be any clearer?
What is remarkable about the reaction to the Prop 8 decision is that within the anger are the beginnings of admissions of defeat. The Right has won many important battles against gay rights, but they are losing the war...and they know it...[A]ttorneys for the Right Wing organizations backing Prop 8 could only manage to sputter tired prejudices barely disguised as legal arguments regarding the mythical damage to society caused by legal recognition of gay couples. -- Michael B. Keegan, president, People For the American Way, "Losing Their Appeal: The Real Reason the Right Is Terrified by the Prop 8 Case," at Huff Post
The religious right may be having a conniption, but younger Republicans increasingly appear to believe that opposing gay equality is inconsistent with a belief in increased liberty and smaller government. Although the religious right will continue to be a strong presence in the GOP for years to come, changing demographics are not on the side of anti-gay forces and the GOP appears to be awakening to this reality. -- RD, "The GOP Drops the Fight Against Gay Rights," at Frum Forum (RD is the pseudonym of a 10-year armed services veteran recently returned from Afghanistan)
I found these two articles interesting because they dovetail nicely regarding the topic of social conservative public meltdowns in the last week or so regarding the war to "save marriage."
If I were not exhausted and didn't have an afternoon meeting...or if maybe sometime during the week I would have seen this coming and managed to set aside some time to write about it, this is where I would have posted a piece about the talk about the removal of protections for transgendered people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
But I am tired. Oh, so tired. As Fanny Lou Hamer said, "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."
Since I am having a meeting today to discuss trying to get my stuff published in book form, I have no time.
So I went back in the stacks. Way back. This was presented first to a Psychology class at the University of Central Arkansas in the mid-90s. The professor who invited me to give this and several other lectures did not earn tenure at UCA. I'm sure there was no connection.
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by
I read a paper by Jamison Green which includes some interesting thoughts about baring yourself to people. It includes the following, which I include as an example of transgender humor: It certainly beats the so-called “jokes” about Ann Coulter...
Stepping in front of the class we become laboratory rats, frogs in the dissection tray, interactive multimedia learning experiences.
'How old were you when you first realized you were a frog, Mr. Green?'
'How did your parents react when you told them you were a frog?'
'Do you date? Do you tell your partners you're a frog?'
'So how does it work? I mean, uh, can you, like, do it?'
Well, I'm not a frog. I'm an educator. It used to be that I educated only about mathematics. Lately I've been teaching computer programing. But I also teach about many issues surrounding the question of diversity in human society. My purpose in this series is to teach about gender. Some of what I write may sound more like politics, but that's because being who I am has been politicized by this society.
Gender is perhaps the first abstract concept that a human learns. Long before we have any knowledge of anatomy, we have been taught in many subtle ways, and in some ways that are not so subtle, the difference between boys and girls. Indeed, the first question that a new parent is asked about their new baby is, "Is it a boy or a girl?" No other option is provided or even acknowledged.
From birth children are interacted with differently based on their sex. The sometimes unconscious, and sometimes very conscious, intent of this difference in treatment is to make sure that children will "fit in" to society at large. Parents are inculcated with the belief that what is ultimately important is that their child "be normal." The effect, however, is to limit the behavior of the child...to place gender barriers around them.
If sex, which I use as a descriptor of an individual human's bio-chemistry, were a binary function, perhaps there wouldn't be any problem with this arrangement.
I will use "gender" to refer to an individual's personal view of hermself. If gender and sex were equivalent, then I wouldn't be writing this.
If those were true, at the very least, there wouldn't be a problem which would likely be noticed.
But sex is not two-valued. The Intersex Society of North America estimates that 1 in every 2000 births results in an intersex child...what used to be called an 'hermaphrodite', which intersex friends of mine have informed me is a term which they wish would vanish from our vocabulary (as one of my friends once said, "This has nothing to do with Hermes and Aphrodite"). I've heard other intersex people discuss a study in which exit interviews with delivery room nurses supposedly revealed that as many as 4% of the population are born with at least somewhat ambiguous genitalia. Additional human babies are born with karotype XO, meaning that they are lacking the chromosomal sex determining factor entirely.
Sex and gender also seem not to be congruent. The existence of transsexual people like myself and the many other gender-variant people that some describe with the umbrella term "transgendered" cannot be ignored when examining gender.
Called "Testimony: Equality on Trial," the novel campaign launched Thursday encourages people across the country to videotape key scenes from the trial and post them on a website alongside performances by Tomei and other professional actors.
The full trial was re-enacted earlier, but once the trial ended and closing arguments were repeatedly delayed, interest (including mine) waned. I must say that Tomei does a much smoother job than was done in the original re-enactment of Kristin Perry's testimony, as I recall it. (Both were unrehearsed, I believe).
In February, two Los Angeles filmmakers, John Ireland and John Ainsworth, recruited 42 actors to play participants in the trial and re-enacted more than 55 hours of testimony. They posted it on YouTube but viewership has been low.
Cohen, who produced "American Beauty" and "Milk," among other films, said the latest effort offers viewers brief segments that contain emotional highlights of the trial.
"The idea of this was to put it up in shorter pieces that might be easier to watch," he said. "People who wouldn't dream of watching two weeks of testimony might watch Marisa Tomei for 10 minutes."
Listen to the 14 minute video, then spread the clip link and reflect on Tomei's statement about why she did this scene:
"Supporters of Prop 8 tried to stop Americans from watching one of the most important trials in a generation," she wrote. "They didn't want the public to see the pain caused by decades of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. But you have the power to change it. You can bring this trial to life...
ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, a bill which would outlaw discrimination in the workplace against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, is dying. What was once a centerpiece of LGBT equal rights and progressives, a part of the Dem party platform, and a bill which President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have repeatedly stated they wants passed, will likely soon be a failed footnote of the 111th Congress.
"The September schedule, no matter how you look at it, is going to be extraordinarily full", said Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.). "There’s a lot of stuff that’s been pushed off."
It is unlikely our dysfunctional Senate will have time to consider ENDA:
The US Senate will return from recess on September 13th, adjourning October 8th. From past experience we know that this is barely enough time for each Senator to sneeze, let alone vote on whether to end debate on whether to begin debate on ENDA, as would be required by our 60-votes-for-everything Senate. Not to mention the time required to attempt to overcome a Republican filibuster of a small-business jobs bill, and a threatened filibuster of the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that contains the language that may one day result in Don't Ask Don't Tell being no more (do not call it repeal, for repeal it most certainly is not). Let's not even think about the time it would consume to consider the myriad nominees Obama has proposed and which the Senate has yet to confirm.
The Senate will then leave for the November elections, to return for a short, chopped up lame-duck session, wherein the entire Washington establishment will have been whipped up into an all-encompassing lather over whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts, and for whom. To assume that anything else of significance will pass the Senate during that time is, if not folly, at best an indication of wild, unsupportable optimism.
The new 2011, still dysfunctional Senate will not be able to pass ENDA:
And then in 2011 a new Senate will appear. A Senate which, if it still retains a Democratic majority at all will, almost everyone agrees, have significantly fewer Democrats. Which means more Republicans (and maybe a Crist). Which means 60 votes for ENDA in the next Congress is a slam-dunk impossibility.
As for the House: it is almost irrelevant what the House does with respect to ENDA. If ENDA cannot get through the Senate, then it cannot become law. And if ENDA is not taken up by the Senate, it cannot be passed by the Senate. ENDA will pass the House if the Senate passes it, or Pelosi isn't the same Speaker she was in March 2010 when she promised health care reform would pass, and has saidshe has no intention of losing either (referring to DADT and ENDA votes in the House)
(You can read more about how the House feels about the Senate regarding ENDA, and the status of ENDA in the House, in this diary.)
And so by far the most likely prospect for ENDA is that it dies a slow, barely noticed death on the agenda cutting-room floor of the Senate. Except for a few GETEQUAL protestors, a few LGBT bloggers and those of you of the 'professional left' who as we know want to torture the White House, there will be raised barely a whimper.
So is there any hope?
Somewhere between slim and almost none.
The slim part:
If Harry Reid were convinced that there were 60 votes for cloture (there are already 51 votes for passage), it is at least conceivable that he would bring the bill to the floor before the end of 2010. Right now no one has the faintest idea whether there are 60 votes for cloture. There are enough possible votes for cloture, but whether these 'possible' Senators can be pinned down and/or whether anyone will make an effort to do so is an open question. Consider:
Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement ... said ... In the current political climate, securing a firm commitment of 60 Senate votes to support ENDA is proving far more difficult than the administration anticipated.
Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently said in a video directed at the LGBT community:
"So I promise you, we're going to do everything in our power to pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act." (About 3:00 minutes in)
But the fact of the matter is no one believes him. Or else his organization has no power. If all but one Democrat in the Senate voted for ENDA it would pass, because there are at least two Republican supporters (Snowe and Collins). This is not something that can be pinned on Republican obstructionism. It's far past time for put up or shut up from the Democratic Party and its Chairman; spouting vacuous promises only furthers the stewing anger.
The almost none part:
Getting ENDA passed in the next Congress involves a trifecta: three events, all of which have to happen:
At the beginning of the next Congress, filibuster reform sufficient to ensure that 51 votes can eventually pass legislation would have to pass the Senate.
The new Senate would have to remain sufficiently Democratic and progressive so that 50 votes remained for ENDA.
The House of Representatives would need to remain in Democratic hands, again with enough votes to pass ENDA.
While none of these three things is impossible, the likelihood of all three occurring at the same time is none too high.
The bottom line:
Other than these two slim threads of hope, we are not looking at passage of a bill that
promotes fundamental American values not to be discriminated against
most Americans already believe is the law, and
at least 70%, and probably more, of the American population supports.
At least not until 2013, and quite possibly later or even never. We never did get an Equal Rights Amendment. ENDA could suffer the same fate. Or are you willing to do something?
What you can do:
Here's contact information for the 'ENDA 11' -- the eleven Senators who are on the fence about supporting ENDA (Pryor, Carper, Nelson (FL), Bayh, Hagan, Conrad, Johnson, Rockefeller, Goodwin, Voinovich, and Murkowski) , along with two others who could conceivably be swayed (Brown (MA) and Lincoln). If you live in any one of these Senators' states, call them up and ask them for a statement of support, if not for ENDA itself, then for a cloture vote. And do what you can to support filibuster reform, or expect no progressive bills of any consequence to pass the US Senate in the next two years, no matter what the topic.
Contact information for the ENDA Eleven and Long Shots:
MARK PRYOR, ARKANSAS 202-224-2353 email 501-324-6336 The River Market, 500 Clinton Ave Ste 401, Little Rock, AR 72201
BLANCHE LINCOLN, ARKANSAS 202-224-4843 email 501-375-2993 870-382-1023 870-910-6896 479-251-1224 912 West Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR 72201
TOM CARPER, DELAWARE 202-224-2441 email 302-573-6291 302-674-3308 302-856-7690 301 North Walnut Street Suite 102L-1, Wilmington, DE 19801
BILL NELSON, FLORIDA 202-224-5274 email 1-888-671-4091 305-536-5999 813-225-7040 850-942-8415 US Court House Annex 111, North Adams Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
EVAN BAYH, INDIANA 202-224-5623 email 317-554-0750 812-465-6500 260-426-3151 219-852-2763 1650 Market Tower, 10 West Market St., Indianapolis, IN 46204
KAY HAGAN, NORTH CAROLINA 202-224-6342 email 1-877-852-9462 336-333-5311 919-856-4630 704-334-2448 701 Green Valley Rd, Suite 201, Greensboro, NC 27408
KENT CONRAD, NORTH DAKOTA 202-224-2043 email 701-258-4648 701-852-0703 701-775-9601 U.S. Federal Building, Room 228, 220 East Rosser Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501
TIM JOHNSON, SOUTH DAKOTA 202-224-5842 email 605-226-3440 605-332-8896 605-341-3990 405 E. Omaha St., Suite B, Rapid City, SD 57701
JAY ROCKEFELLER, WEST VIRGINIA 202-224-6472 email 304-253-9704 304-347-5372 304-367-0122 304-262-9285 405 Capitol Street Suite 508, Charleston, WV 25301-1749
CARTE GOODWIN, WEST VIRGINIA 202-224-3954 email 304-367-0122, 304-262-9285, 304-347-5372 188 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-4801
SCOTT BROWN, MASSACHUSETTS 202-224-4543 email 617-565-3170 2400 JFK Federal Bldg, Boston, MA 02203
GEORGE VOINOVICH, OHIO 202-224-3353 email 216-522-7095, 513-684-3265, 419-259-3895 1240 East 9th Street, Room 3061, Cleveland, OH 44199
LISA MURKOWSKI, ALASKA 202-224-6665 email 907-456-0233, 907-271-3735 101 12th Ave, Room 216, Fairbanks, AK 99701
By Robyn
If I were not exhausted and didn't have an afternoon meeting...or if maybe sometime during the week I would have seen this coming and managed to set aside some time to write about it, this is where I would have posted a piece about the talk about the removal of protections for transgendered people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.