Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 15
July 7, 2011
Michele Bachmann signs fundie pledge to "ban porn"
BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography |Here's the 14-point pledge... The meat of the laughable mess:
Tonight, Michele Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann "vows" to "uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman" by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of "all forms" of pornography.
The Candidate Vow:While we're on the subject of Bachmann, get a load of her plan to address poverty:
Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
* Personal fidelity to my spouse.
* Respect for the marital bonds of others.
* Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
* Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage - faithful monogamy between one man and one woman - through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
* Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.
* Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended "second chance" or "cooling-off" periods for those seeking a "quickie divorce."
* Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
* Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.
* Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children - from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
* Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
* Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
* Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
* Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA?s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.
* Fierce defense of the First Amendment?s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech22, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.
Bachmann's Parable For The Poor: Have Faith In God And You Won't Need Welfare.
BACHMANN: We went from middle class to overnight below poverty. And my mother had to leave the home and get a job...and I had to go out and get babysitting jobs...to help out. ... We did not go on dependency programs. And I don't begrudge anyone who does when I say that, but we didn't do that. We had our faith in God, we depended on our neighbors, we depended on ourselves, and we just did without. We made do, we did without. [...] And we were just grateful for what we had. We knew that one day things would be better than they were. And God was faithful, and they were better.
Which 19 Democrats Helped Virginia Foxx And The GOP Bash The Gays?
In truth, the amendment is toothless and accomplishes little. It is merely a statement that the DOD should spend no money on gay troops' lawfully wedded husbands and wives, which because of DOMA the DOD had no intention (or likely, desire) to do anyway. (Isn't that kind? They can die for our country, but God forbid, the Army should spring for a meal or a cot for their families. How patriotic of the GOP. Whatever...)
I thought it was important we put into sharp focus who in the Democratic party aligned themselves with Virginia Foxx and the GOP's little gay bashing stunt.
Naming names after the fold. Look for yours. (Sorry Pam, NC does not fare well. New York and Florida do their LGBT constituents proud though.)
This amendment was not included in the Senate version of the bill. It is for all intents and purposes merely a grandstanding opportunity to the gay bigot crowd.?There was no real point to voting for this amendment except to express your faithful allegiance to Virginia Foxx and the gay-bashing agenda of the Republican party.?
So, I encourage you to see if your rep is part of the gay-bashing cabal of the United States House of Representative. From?Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade, here are the?19 Democrats who?voted?in favor of the amendment:?
Jason Altmire (D-Pa.)
John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.)
Dan Boren (D-Okla.)
Ben Chandler (D-Ky.)
Jerry Costello (D-Ill.)
Mark Critz (D-Pa.)
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)
Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Gene Green (D-Texas)
Tim Holden (D-Pa.)
Larry Kissell (D-N.C.)
Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.)
Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.)
James Matheson (D-Utah)
Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Nich Rahall (D-W.V.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark.)
Heath Shuler (D-N.C.).
So, if they represent you, congratulations! Your rep is more regressive on LGBT rights than these 6 Republican who voted against it. They are:?
Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.)
Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.)
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.)
Nan Hayworth (R-N.Y.)?
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.).
Coincidentally, Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog just posted a piece about the key role a united Democratic front played in winning marriage equality in New York State last month. The national party leaders might do well to study it if they ever intend to actually make good on their promises to deliver DOMA repeal or ENDA someday.
PS: Homo-bashers? How does this bill make jobs? Don't you have more important things to do?
Your blogmistress turns 48 today...miscellany on the journey from 47
Another year, another birthday...47 was a rough offline year for the blogmistress (the Wronghaven lawsuit, major surgery (and the health crap before and after it), but the important thing is that there was so much support out there from Blenders who continued to read the stellar work of the baristas and contribute their own diaries when I was pretty down and out (and highly medicated).
But hey, it wasn't just a chock-full-of-pain year. One of the highlights of the year was going to the kickoff concert in Las Vegas to see my favorite band, Journey, in February -- in the third row (with my newfound friend from Japan, Sachiko), so I got fantastic pix.
The J-Boys are currently on the Eclipse tour (my review), and I'm going to NYC to see them when they play on the Today Show on 7/29 -- crossing fingers that my health holds up.
Another event that I enjoyed while 47 was Netroots Nation, because it's the one conference where I can meet up with people in the movement (Below, left: like Zack Ford of Think Progress LGBT) that I don't get to see very often since I'm not located in the NY/DC nexus of politics. It was the first year that I was also credentialed to attend -- thanks to Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud -- the RightOnline conference, the conservative gathering that piggybacks NN each year.
I promised not to "write a hit piece" on the righties. That wasn't a particularly difficult request to fulfill, since RightOnline, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, is a haven for the libertarian/country club/free enterprise set. This generally isn't a gathering for the professional anti-gays. We may have vast differences in how to solve problems vexing the country, but replacing the Constitution with the Bible isn't one of them.The other big change during the year was the announcement that PHB is moving to FDL as its own channel (yes, it's still happening; getting the content over from Soapblox has proven challenging).
Radical acceptance: love my body at 48?
One of the most thought-provoking sessions I attended this year was during the annual National Organization for Women's conference in Tampa. The plenary was on body image - "Love Your Body: Positive
Images of Women & Girls," moderated by NOW's Erin Matson, with panelists Kate Dillon, Gabi Gregg, and Katie Makkai. It was a natural offshoot of NOW's decade-plus Let's Talk About It awareness initiative.
The campaign encourages women and girls to celebrate their bodies and reject the narrow beauty ideals endorsed in the media.Kate Dillon is a well-known plus-size fashion model who started her career as a size 6 model. Seeing her in person, she's stunning and healthy looking, not emaciated. That said, she's quite tall (as most models are, so she wears her weight exceptionally well). Gabi Gregg of Gabifresh.com (who is also, btw, MTV's first Twitter VJ), definitely has sassed her way into radical acceptance of her body on her popular blog, and has forced the fashion industry to take note in the process, having been featured in Glamour and Vogue for her work:Every year the Love Your Body poster contest receives hundreds, sometimes thousands of entries. Now, we're ready to be inspired in a whole new way. The Let's Talk About It project, inspired by NOW Foundation's partnership in National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, is a new way for YOU to help lead a spirited discussion about body image issues.
If you're tired of being bombarded by retouched pictures telling you how women should look, if you're done with advertisers portraying women as objects to be consumed, if you're ready to talk back, then join us. Make a video telling the world why you're embracing the real you. Help us spread the word, and you might even be featured on this website.
Glamour GirlOn to my own modest acceptance, at 48 - it's never too late, I suppose. After the jump.
Most of you who are long-time readers of my blog know that I'm a big fan of the "make it work" philosophy: I shop at straight size stores and find things that I can wear, regardless of whether it fits the way the designer intended it. When you're fat and stylish you have to be creative. Though the options are definitely getting better, I still refuse to limit myself to what's readily available for plus sizes because I'm not satisfied. For a long time, people told me I was only able to shop at straight size stores because I was an "inbetweenie," around a size 16. Forty pounds later, I'm a size 20/22, and I still bring my fat ass into H&M, TopShop, and wherever else I want. They may not make clothes to fit me, but they can't stop me from making their clothes fit me.
The fact is our society - and the "Beauty Industrial Complex" - train us to think there is always something wrong with out bodies...and that they have the product, for a handsome price, that will make life better for you.
I think the nadir of this obsession was reached with the advent of Latisse, a prescription medication hawked by Brooke Shields. Who knew that even your eyelashes can be deemed inadequate and in need of products from the beauty industrial complex to "fix them."
If even your eyelashes are up to such scrutiny, forget about your extra junk in your trunk or my swelly belly post-hysterectomy.
During the Q&A after the Love Your Body panel, so many women stepped up to the mic to talk about their battles with self-image, eating disorders and treatment by others around them, like most of us, who buy into the self-loathing -- the litany of physical attributes we find lacking (or over abundant).
Despite all of the positivity of the panelists about learning to let go of "what other people think" as you journey toward self-acceptance, there was one question from the audience none of them could answer - how do you deal with people who not only judge you on your size, but directly affect your life? A woman said that she had dealt with weight ups and downs during her career at one company, and she noted that the only time she was given a significant raise or promotion only was when she was at her thinnest.
You can't change what other people think (not quickly, anyway), the culture has to change, and that is what the challenge is of radical acceptance of your own body, build your own self-confidence and dispel any misconceptions about being short, fat, bald, whatever the issue is that vexes you.
Of course in the LGBT world, the whole diseased "no fats, no femmes" has driven gay men into levels of obsession over diet, appearance, and beauty standard conformity that women have had to deal with since the dawn of time. It's not a great measure of equality to have equal levels of oppressive thinking about body image. Love of body types outside of the beauty "standard" shouldn't be a matter of fetishism, but that's what it's become, the band of "acceptable" attraction is that narrow in some circles.
***
Ah, I've strayed a tad, but hey, it's my birthday post. In terms of my own acceptance of who I am in the present, I'm doing ok to just be happy when I'm not in pain, but aside from the chronic sh*t going on inside my body that is invisible to others, the panel made me think about what I do and don't like about my exterior self.
My weight has fluctuated over my lifetime, less affected by what I eat, because since puberty my PCOS and insulin-dependent diabetes have made it difficult to lose weight (my body makes insulin, but doesn't use it well). My long-suffering endocrinologist knows the long list of bizarre messes going on inside my body.
At 5'3", there's not a lot of height to spread my weight around. I have lost about 35 lbs over the last year or so, not by dieting or exercise, but disease, pain and surgery. I don't recommend that diet plan, lol. I think my set point just dropped after juggling a variety of the meds I've been changing around to deal with the fibromyalgia and neuropathy. Chronic pain reduces appetite as well.
But now I've accepted that I'll never be thin. In fact, I've never been petite (I'm a more solid, stocky version of my mom, actually more like my maternal grandmother), and did play soccer and softball.
I certainly remember back when I was in first grade (and 2nd and 3rd), wanting desperately to have a pair of white, knee-high boots. Now I wasn't particularly overweight at the time, but my calves were always too big/muscular to zip up in regular boots. I thought I was a freak. None of the other girls in the class seemed to have this problem and it upset me. No matter whether I was at my thinnest or heaviest, my calves (and forearms) were always way over-developed whether I worked out or not.
Around 40 I started not to give a crap and said why can't I wear shorter skirts/dresses if it's hot out and I want to? Or what if I just want to wear them? The odd thing is that now, at 47, I have been out with my big old calves exposed from time to time and have had women ask me "how do you get your legs so muscular" or "what exercises are you doing to get them that way?" All I can say in reply is "good genes." (I even had an X-ray tech ask me a variation of the question when prepping me for an X-ray during my last kidney stone episode just a few weeks ago.)
So what has changed? You tell me.
Is it my own body confidence now at 48 - and willingness to say screw it and wear leg-revealing garb? A change in the perception of what constitutes good-looking legs? Given I have Hobbity-short but strong-looking legs as opposed to long, lithe legs like I see in the commercials as the beauty standard, your guess is as good as mine.
But I can at least love my calves for what they are. Loving the rest of me may take a while longer, but I'll get there. Maybe it will happen while I'm 48.
The truck decapitations at the bridge outside of my office make the news again
Despite an 11'8' warning sign and flashing lights, it just keeps happening, as WRAL reports. Watch for the spectacular Two Men and a Truck crash. It's now Two Men and 1/2 of a Truck.
Related:
* Video: watch trucks get decapitated outside of my office
Rev. Irene Monroe: Obama harkens back to slavery with "states' rights" for same-sex marriage
Yes, the states have varying laws on the books related to marriage, but what we have going on can and should be addressed by this President -- we have states embracing equality, while other states are enshrining bigotry into their state constitutions against a class of citizens at the ballot box.
He knows this is wrong; and it will give comfort to our foes who will quote the President with glee in their campaigns to pass marriage amendments.
For those of us in states facing institutionalized oppression, the perspective of "progress" looks very different when you are sitting where further battles loom, as opposed to areas where equality is blooming. There is thinking that exists in abundance in the LGBT community (usually couched in the legal abstract) that helps generates the willingness to see "throw away states" -- where LGBTs will suffer -- as mere speed bumps on the way to equality.
More below the fold.Obama harkens backs to slavery with "states' rights" for same-sex marriage
By Rev. Irene Monroe
Last month, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans and our allies celebrated New York State becoming the sixth and largest state to allow same-sex marriage.
And, of course, it sent an urgent message to Obama.
But what does it signal to us LGBTQ citizens when the first African American president wants to employ states' rights, which once upon a time in this country federally mandated racial segregation and sanctioned American slavery, to address the issue of same-sex marriage?
As a civil rights attorney, Obama knows that employing states' rights violates our full constitutional rights as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that case, the "separate but equal" doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
The fight for marriage equality in the U.S. is similarly to my ancestors' fight for freedom. In their day, before the Civil War in 1861, the U.S. consisted of nineteen free states and fifteen slave states. As a matter of fact, in the 2004 presidential race between John Kerry and George Bush where marriage equality was a hot-button issue, the election map results between Kerry's blues states and Bush's red states corresponded to the pre-civil war free states and slave states, respectively.
As LGBTQ Americans, we're not in slavery, but we certainly will be in a civil war as each state battle this issue. Whereas President Lincoln acted on behalf of my ancestor's civil rights, we need to call on Obama to move on ours.
"The President has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. "This states' rights argument is a separate but equal argument. Would the President have thought it right to let the states decide on the issue of interracial marriage, or on whether or not women should be allowed to vote?"
In 2008, a blogger on Pam's House Blend was prescient and saw the painting on the wall about Obama's as a full-throated LGBTQ civil rights advocate and wrote:
"Obama not only thinks that separate-but-equal is just ducky for LGBT couples. It was a gimmick from an era in which Obama could have aspired to no position in the White House higher than that of head janitor. ...Once he's in office, LGBT citizens will be forgotten. Obama is also in favor of the 'States Rights' approach to the whole marriage equality issue. This was a principle sacred to the White Citizens' Councils a half-century ago and is just as unconstitutional now..."Obama needs to remember that an African-American woman named Mildred Loving not only set the precedent for same-sex marriage, but also allowed Obama's parents to marry by challenging states' rights.
Loving gained notoriety when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in her favor that anti-miscegenation laws executed by the state are unconstitutional. Married to a white man, Loving and her husband were indicted by a Virginia grand jury in October 1958 for violating the state's 'Racial Integrity Act of 1924.' The trial judge suspended their sentences on the condition the Lovings leave Virginia and not return to the state together for 25 years. The Lovings initially agreed and left, but returned soon after and decided to fight their case.
In advocating that same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, ABCNews reported that Obama stated, "I think it's important for us to work through these issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different."
Perhaps, after nearly one full term in office, Obama is still unaware of deleterious effects of how the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from fully protecting same-sex nuptials. DOMA denies us a government-issued civil marriage license, and over 1100 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate, among other benefits and responsibilities conferred upon heterosexual married couples.
But how many sides are there to a politician's mouth eyeing toward 2012?
"If Obama were to come out for marriage equality today, nothing could happen tomorrow," said one Democratic strategist close to the administration who spoke on condition of anonymity to ABCNews.com. "The Defense of Marriage Act still needs to be repealed, and that won't happen soon with a Republican-controlled House in place."
"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," Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.
While our President states his opinion is still "evolving" on this issue, he needs to know that we LGBTQ Americans and our families want to sample what he and Michelle and every heterosexual married couple take for granted -- marriage, not marriage-lite.
Our democracy can only begin to work when those relegated to the fringes of society can begin to sample what those in society take for granted as their inalienable right. For that to happen people, like state lawmakers, have to step in to make the democratic process work for us all.
And so, too, our President!
Irene Monroe: Obama harkens backs to slavery with "states' rights" for same-sex marriage
Yes, the states have varying laws on the books related to marriage, but what we have going on can and should be addressed by this President -- we have states embracing equality, while other states are enshrining bigotry into their state constitutions against a class of citizens at the ballot box.
He knows this is wrong; and it will give comfort to our foes who will quote the President with glee in their campaigns to pass marriage amendments.
For those of us in states facing institutionalized oppression, the perspective of "progress" looks very different when you are sitting where further battles loom, as opposed to areas where equality is blooming. There is thinking that exists in abundance in the LGBT community (usually couched in the legal abstract) that helps generates the willingness to see "throw away states" -- where LGBTs will suffer -- as mere speed bumps on the way to equality.
More below the fold.
By Rev. Irene Monroe
Last month, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans and our allies celebrated New York State becoming the sixth and largest state to allow same-sex marriage.
And, of course, it sent an urgent message to Obama.
But what does it signal to us LGBTQ citizens when the first African American president wants to employ states' rights, which once upon a time in this country federally mandated racial segregation and sanctioned American slavery, to address the issue of same-sex marriage?
As a civil rights attorney, Obama knows that employing states' rights violates our full constitutional rights as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that case, the "separate but equal" doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
The fight for marriage equality in the U.S. is similarly to my ancestors' fight for freedom. In their day, before the Civil War in 1861, the U.S. consisted of nineteen free states and fifteen slave states. As a matter of fact, in the 2004 presidential race between John Kerry and George Bush where marriage equality was a hot-button issue, the election map results between Kerry's blues states and Bush's red states corresponded to the pre-civil war free states and slave states, respectively.
As LGBTQ Americans, we're not in slavery, but we certainly will be in a civil war as each state battle this issue. Whereas President Lincoln acted on behalf of my ancestor's civil rights, we need to call on Obama to move on ours.
"The President has staked out a cynical political position aimed at not rocking the boat," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay rights issues. "This states' rights argument is a separate but equal argument. Would the President have thought it right to let the states decide on the issue of interracial marriage, or on whether or not women should be allowed to vote?"
In 2008, a blogger on Pam's House Blend was prescient and saw the painting on the wall about Obama's as a full-throated LGBTQ civil rights advocate and wrote:
"Obama not only thinks that separate-but-equal is just ducky for LGBT couples. It was a gimmick from an era in which Obama could have aspired to no position in the White House higher than that of head janitor. ...Once he's in office, LGBT citizens will be forgotten. Obama is also in favor of the 'States Rights' approach to the whole marriage equality issue. This was a principle sacred to the White Citizens' Councils a half-century ago and is just as unconstitutional now..."Obama needs to remember that an African-American woman named Mildred Loving not only set the precedent for same-sex marriage, but also allowed Obama's parents to marry by challenging states' rights.
Loving gained notoriety when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in her favor that anti-miscegenation laws executed by the state are unconstitutional. Married to a white man, Loving and her husband were indicted by a Virginia grand jury in October 1958 for violating the state's 'Racial Integrity Act of 1924.' The trial judge suspended their sentences on the condition the Lovings leave Virginia and not return to the state together for 25 years. The Lovings initially agreed and left, but returned soon after and decided to fight their case.
In advocating that same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, ABCNews reported that Obama stated, "I think it's important for us to work through these issues because each community is going to be different, each state is going to be different."
Perhaps, after nearly one full term in office, Obama is still unaware of deleterious effects of how the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the federal government from fully protecting same-sex nuptials. DOMA denies us a government-issued civil marriage license, and over 1100 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate, among other benefits and responsibilities conferred upon heterosexual married couples.
But how many sides are there to a politician's mouth eyeing toward 2012?
"If Obama were to come out for marriage equality today, nothing could happen tomorrow," said one Democratic strategist close to the administration who spoke on condition of anonymity to ABCNews.com. "The Defense of Marriage Act still needs to be repealed, and that won't happen soon with a Republican-controlled House in place."
"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," Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.
While our President states his opinion is still "evolving" on this issue, he needs to know that we LGBTQ Americans and our families want to sample what he and Michelle and every heterosexual married couple take for granted -- marriage, not marriage-lite.
Our democracy can only begin to work when those relegated to the fringes of society can begin to sample what those in society take for granted as their inalienable right. For that to happen people, like state lawmakers, have to step in to make the democratic process work for us all.
And so, too, our President!
Linda Harvey and Gary Glenn - the sad meeting of two homophobic people
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
According to People for the American Way's Right-Wing Watch, a very nauseating but interesting incident recently took place.Two homophobes conducted a radio interview and agreed the gay community is full of disease-ridden folks who should be discriminated against:
Linda Harvey of Mission America interviewed Gary Glenn, the head of the American Family Association’s Michigan chapter, during her radio show on how the Religious Right should respond to gay rights victories. Glenn, a prominent activist that Mike Huckabee calls his “very special friend,” warned that companies should be wary of hiring lesbian and gay employees because of what Glenn calls the “severe medical consequences” of being gay. Approvingly, Harvey argued that employers should take note that gays lives unstable lives and added, “I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk”.
People for the American Way has the audio, but I won't pollute this blog with that mess. I will just post the pertinent part of the transcript:
Glenn: What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest. It’s not really bright to engage in behavior that puts you at dramatically higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse and AIDS and cancer and hepatitis, and according to various sources, premature death. So to suggest that engaging in that type of behavior defines someone as the best and brightest, which seems to be the line coming out of corporate America, is just ridiculous.
Harvey: You’re right. And higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t.
First of all, let's get Harvey out of the way. She is a woman masking her ignorance behind a religious identity. She is merely a former ad executive who "found Jesus." Of course in her supposed "discovery of Jesus," Harvey seems to have intentionally forgotten his comments about love and truth.
Harvey and her miniscule, totally irrelevant, probably one-person organization (Mission America) is always on hand to say some of the ugliest, filthiest untruths about the gay community. She even blamed us for the mortgage crisis:
According to Harvey, who believes that gay people use “demonic manipulation” to recruit children and told parents to “separate your child” from their gay friends, Harvey was also behind the recent pathetic attempted GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) smear which no one - except for me because I love laughing at homophobic liars - paid any attention to.
Older folks would probably refer to Harvey as a "few fries short of a Happy Meal" or a person "whose head isn't wrapped tight enough." But to some evangelicals, she is considered as a perfect Christian activist.
Now Glenn is a bit more complicated. As the American Family Association of Michigan leader, he has a long history of lying. That nonsense he repeated to Harvey about gay health is very interesting, seeing that he tried to pull the same figures on me last year.
At that time, Glenn said that homosexual behavior should be criminalized. I called him out on it and he attempted to answer me back. However, his comments were pathetic, pretty much saying the same thing he said to Harvey.
However, I had sources and was able to not only back up what I said, but also reveal that Glenn was being highly deceptive. He used scientific data which talked about negative gay health behaviors to demonize the community, but intentionally discarded the part of the data which placed the blame for these behaviors on homophobia.
Listen to what Glenn said to Harvey. Then read the exchange between me and him
from last year.
Witness the meeting of a true believer and a man who will repeat lies for spotlight.
And please note that there are no differences between the two. Both are dangerous and both are simply pathetic.
July 6, 2011
Virginia Foxx: still evil to the core
U.S. Congresswoman Virginia Foxx. Bigot. An embarrassment to North Carolina. There's not much else left to say except that the common sense people are vastly outnumbered by the ignorant, low-info, constituents in her district, and that's why she continues to be re-elected. QNotes: Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx, who represents North Carolina’s Fifth Congressional District, attached her amendment to the Department of Defense’s budget for the 2012 fiscal year. Filed with Indiana Rep. Dan Burton, the amendment would require enforcement of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and ban any use of funds for “benefits, such as housing, education, medical services, transportation, etc., for same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples,” according to a fact sheet. The Obama Administration has stopped defending DOMA in federal court, saying the law is unconstitutional.And yes, the House today, in a useless vote, reaffirmed the bigoted DOMA.
Lawmakers voted in favor of the amendment, which was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), by a margin of 248-175 as part of the fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill. The amendment would prohibit the use of Pentagon funds in contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.Equality NC:
...Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, rebuked the House in a statement for adopting the anti-gay measure as part of the defense appropriations bill. “This amendment is completely unnecessary and only serves to cloud the debate over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal by pointlessly injecting the issue of marriage equality into the conversation," Solmonese said.
"Since Pentagon officials have made it clear that they are bound by DOMA like every other federal agency, it’s puzzling why Rep. Foxx would question whether our military leaders understand this point."
“This targeting of gay servicemembers is deplorable." said Alex Miller, Interim Executive Director for Equality NC and veteran of the U.S. Army Infantry. "It is un-American, un-democratic and most certainly unjust. Representing a state with a large population of military personnel of all sexual orientations and gender identities, we stand in strong solidarity with these men and women and condemn this attempt at marginalization.”
You might recall that she's the horrorshow who declared that Matthew Shepard's murder wasn't a hate crime -- Foxx said it was a "hoax."
Rep. Foxx: "The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's, it's really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."[House Floor Speech, 4/29/09] NOTE: The roll call is below the fold.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll516.xml
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 516
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 2219 RECORDED VOTE 7-Jul-2011 6:22 PM
AUTHOR(S): Foxx of North Carolina Amendment No. 61
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
AYESNOESPRESNVREPUBLICAN2296 4DEMOCRATIC19169 4INDEPENDENT TOTALS248175 8
---- AYES 248 ---
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
---- NOES 175 ---
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
---- NOT VOTING 8 ---
Cantor
Cardoza
Culberson
Gibbs
Giffords
Payne
Sullivan
Towns
Just in: DADT struck down as 9th Circuit reinstates court order
Lisa Leff, AP:A federal appeals court ordered the U.S. government on Wednesday to immediately cease enforcing the longstanding ban on openly gay members of the military.More, from Think Progress:In a brief two-page order, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the "don't ask, don't tell" policy must be lifted now that the Obama administration has concluded it's unconstitutional to treat gay Americans differently under the law.
Perhaps most significantly, today's order shows that the Department of Justice's recent recognition that anti gay laws are highly constitutionally suspect is producing results. The court expressly relied on this determination by DOJ in reinstating the injunction against Don't Ask/Don't Tell.The docket text, for those of you who like decoding, as well as reactions are below the fold.At the same time, however, it does not necessarily follow that the panel would have also struck down DOMA or otherwise resolved a gay rights question on the merits. Today's order dealt with the narrow question of whether or not a trial court decision striking down DADT must be stayed while the decision is still under appeal. Before issuing a stay, a court must consider factors such as whether a stay will "substantially injure" other parties and whether a stay is "in the public interest." Today's order concludes that these factors no longer weigh in favor of a stay now that DADT repeal is imminent and DOJ concedes its unconstitutionality.
Here's the text of the order:
Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD A. PAEZ) The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is substituted for Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, as an appellant/cross-appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Appellee/cross-appellant's motion to lift this court's November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court's judgment pending appeal is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (stating standard); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). In their briefs, appellants/cross-appellees do not contend that 10 U.S.C. ? 654 is constitutional. In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. ? 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) ("gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination"); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) ("there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities"). Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay. Appellee/cross-appellant's alternative request to expedite oral argument is granted. The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of August 29, 2011, in Pasadena, California. Briefing is completed. [7809248] [10-56634, 10-56813] (KD)***
Reactions, as they came in...
SLDN:
(Washington, DC) Army Veteran and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis issued the following statement on the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today to reinstate the injunction on enforcement of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law in the Log Cabin Republicans vs. United States case.Servicemembers United:"Today's decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is most welcomed. It's the hope of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network that this favorable ruling will not be challenged by the Defense Department. In fact, this whole matter could have been avoided had we had certification back in the spring. It's time to get on with that important certification, end the DADT confusion for all service members, and put a final end to this misguided policy."
Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, today enthusiastically applauded the order issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifting its own stay of a lower court's injunction barring enforcement of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. This move once again renders "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" unenforceable by the Pentagon.HRC:"With the wait for certification dragging out beyond a reasonable time frame, the Court has once again stepped in to require the Pentagon to stop enforcing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and this time it very well may be for good," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole veteran plaintiff on the case. "I am proud to have worked personally worked with Log Cabin on this case for more than five years now and to have represented the gay military community as the sole named veteran on this lawsuit. Despite the criticisms and years of waiting, this case has yet again successfully eviscerated this outdated, harmful, and discriminatory law."
The Log Cabin Republicans vs. U.S.A. lawsuit is the only contemporary successful challenge to the constitutionality of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, which requires the Department of Defense to abruptly fire any servicemember found to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips found the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law to be unconstitutional after a two-week trial, and issued an order barring enforcement of the law worldwide. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a stay of that order pending appeal by the government. Today's order from the Ninth Circuit overturns its own previous stay, rendering "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once again unenforceable.
Nicholson added, "Servicemembers should still remain extremely cautious with information regarding their sexual orientation for the time being. The issue remains in a state of flux, although guarded optimism is certainly warranted."
Today a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re-instituted an injunction barring the military from enforcing the ban on openly lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The court concluded that, with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal being implemented and certification of the new policy forthcoming, the government would not be burdened by ceasing enforcement at this time. The order was issued in the appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. Panetta (formerly Gates), a case challenging the constitutionality of the DADT law. In September 2010, a federal district judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional and the Obama administration appealed that decision. While the Ninth Circuit must still rule on the constitutionality of the law, until it does so, the military will now be enjoined from enforcing DADT. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:"Today's decision is a harbinger that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is on its way out. With troops trained on the new policy and senior military leaders having said the process is working without significant disruption, DADT is on its last legs. The time for certification is now in order to clearly and plainly wipe this damaging law off the books once and for all."
The Detective .... Hollywood's Look At NYC Police Homophobia
Had they known in advance the subject matter I’m sure they would have left me home to watch TV.
Fourteen years old at the time and increasingly becoming aware of my sexuality I left the theater with one impression.
The only good homosexual is a dead homosexual, either murdered or one who has committed suicide.
Tough stuff for a teenager and anyone who was gay or bisexual. Herein lies the tale of one of the most gut wrenching films any gay or bi could have seen at the time or even since then in its condemnation of homosexuality. The Detective.
Fast forward 40 plus years later and last evening when I watched the movie for the first time in many years with a new adult and LGBT perspective to see what the movie was, not just a condemnation of homosexuality but with all the stereotypical examples of gay and bi men, how society at the time looked at homosexuality and how homosexuals were treated by those whose job it was to serve and protect, the police.
The Detective based on the 1966 book of the same name authored by Rodrick Thorp with the screenplay written by Abby Mann was released in late May of 1968 a full year prior to the Stonewall uprising in Greenwich Village in New York City.
Sinatra had the lead role as a third generation NYC cop, Detective Sargent Joe Leland who was called to investigate the brutal murder of a well to do homosexual. Under political pressure and some of his own making when he announced he would arrest the killer in 48 hours, Leland arrests the wrong man who under considerable interrogation pressure admits to the killing and who is later convicted and then executed for the crime.
So as not to spoil too much for those who have never seen the movie and how Leland comes to find out the truth which comes at the end of this tour-de-force crime drama I’ll stop here in regards to the murder. As a secondary theme of the film it looks at Leland and his ex-wife played by Lee Remick and their relationship from how they met, married and subsequently divorced.
The all-star cast of the time includes Robert Duvall as Leland’s homophobic nemesis, Jack Klugman and Jacqueline Bisset to name just a few.
But what brings the homophobic condemnation to a head for those watching are the gay stereotypes, the raid of trailers in the meat-packing district, the manhandling of the faggots by New York’s finest, even explaining away that there is no such thing as a bisexual and as we call it today in regards to mudering an LGBT, gay panick.
So typical are some of the portrayals and even scenes including one with detectives discussing the case when one of them describes various things regarding homosexuals that the “implied” attitude of the others is “well if you know so much you must be one” that for this writer no other film hits and punches the gay community like this film, either before or since.
I dare say if this film were made today there would be an uproar as there was over the 1980 Al Pacino film Cruising which this writer wrote about last August. From what I’ve been able to, or lack of, find there was no uproar of the critically acclaimed film which did well at the box office. Nor any disapproval over the book when published.
If you’ve never seen the movie put it on your A-list of must watch, but be warned even though the film depicts the attitude towards gay and bi men in the 60′s it is tough to watch the homophobic attitude portrayed which must have made gay and bi men who saw the film want to crawl under their theater seat and never come out from under.
It is that powerful a film.
Cross-posted from Focus On The Rainbow (with movie trailer)
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
