Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 4

NOM slapped down by the courts while its bus tour is flopping hard

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

Yesterday was not a good day for the National Organization for Marriage. According to ThinkProgress:

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has again ruled against the National Organization for Marriage’s attempts to challenge the “constitutionality of a Rhode Island election law requiring the reporting of so-called ‘independent expenditures.’”  NOM has been actively challenging financial disclosure laws across the country to protect the names of its few but generous donors. The Court borrowed largely from its own decision against NOM’s challenge to Maine’s laws. Read the full decision.

The Maine Public Broadcasting Network goes into more detail about NOM's loss:

NOM, which was the major funder behind the effort to overturn Maine's same sex marriage law two years ago, had had challenged the constitutionality of Maine's election law, claiming that its reporting requirements for political action committties are vague and over-broad.

District Court Judge Brock Hornby ruled against NOM on most of its challenge, and now the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has also weighed in, siding with the state of Maine.

"That's correct, NOM had made 'vagueness' claims and First Amendement claims, and the 1st Circuit rejected all of them," says Tom Knowlton, an assistant state attorney general who serves as counsel for the Maine Ethics Commission. "The 1st Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of Maine's laws that require the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in candidate elections by PACs and by independent groups."

And as if NOM's court loss isn't bad enough, according to Equality Matters, the organization's "Values Bus" tour is an unmitigated flop:

On Tuesday, NOM -- along with the anti-gay Family Research Council and anti-choice Susan B. Anthony List -- began its 2011 “Values Bus Tour,” which plans to stop at 22 Iowa cities and energize ‘value voters’ to participate in the Ames Straw Poll on August 13 (the day the tour ends). 
So far, tour stops have included appearances from GOP presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, with others expected to show up before the week ends.
Not making appearances so far? Actual voters.
So far, looking over the scant news coverage the tour has received, it appears that few of NOM loyal followers bothered coming out to show their support.

And Equality Matters is definitely twisting the screws into NOM's wounds by going into detail as to where NOM stops on its tour and just how many people are not showing up. 
I know I shouldn't enjoy Equality Matters's breakdown of NOM's flopping tour but I am.

Sometimes you gotta say what the hell and do things for your own personal enjoyment.

The Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds - Santorum on Iran and the rights of gays

OMFG. I didn't bother to watch the GOP debate tonight (I spent it with fellow plokkers in a chat room with Journey's Arnel Pineda, lol).  

I'm glad I didn't see this live. I may have thrown something at the TV. Viewers should have had a button to open a trap door when Little Ricky opened his piehole to say this.

***

UPDATE: Thank you, Igor Volsky at Think Progress LGBT for putting together a compilation video of the delicious, pander-a-looza of anti-gay blather from tonight's debate. It's two minutes of the batsh*ttery you'd expect from thie 2012 GOP Clown Car.

MITT ROMNEY: Marriage is a status. It's not an activity that goes on within the walls of a state and as a result, our marriage status relationship should be constant across the country. I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

JON HUNTSMAN: I also believe in civil unions, because I believe this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality and I believe we can do a better job when it comes to reciprocal beneficiary rights rights.

RON PAUL: I think marriages should be between a single man and a single woman and that the federal government shouldn't be involved.

RICK SANTORUM: It sounds to me like Rep. Paul would say that polygamous marriages are okay.

MICHELE BACHMANN: I support the federal marriage amendment...and as president I would not nominate activist judges who would legislate from the bench.

"I Want To Be With My Family, In?My?Country."

Bradford Wells and Anthony John Makk spoke with guest host David Shuster on Countdown last night to discuss the immigration problem that plagues their family. After 19 years of lawfully residing together in this country, Anthony Makk has run out of options, and will face the choice of illegally overstaying his visa in 13 days or returning to Australia and leaving behind his husband of seven years, partner of 19. His husband Bradford suffers from AIDS and Anthony is his primary caregiver. Wells' health problems preclude him joining his husband in Australia, though that might be an option legally.

Here, their options are running out, but still, Wells says he loves the country that is tearing his husband from him, and Makk remains hopeful a solution will still present itself.

Teddy Partridge has provided a transcript of the Countdown video here.
CNN interviews Anthony and Bradford as well, going into greater detail how Bradford's medical condition affects their situation, and how he depends on Anthony to help him cope day to day.

While I certainly don't envy the couple's circumstances, I find it hard not to envy the very obvious love, affection and commitment these men have found in one another. This perpetual bachelor knows far too well how rare it is to find and maintain connections like this in life. There can be no Earthly reason to object to our government supporting these families, not destroying them.

Immigration Equality, the group representing Makk and Wells, has said they are taking the case to the White House. Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the group, told Countdown:

"I would think the White House would get political points. Do you want a dying American to be here with his caregiver or not?"

The organization has drafted a petition that reads, in part:

The government has the power to keep these families together. Your administration can - and should - allow lesbian and gay couples to remain together while the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act is challenged in the courts, and in Congress. You have acknowledged that DOMA is unconstitutional and indefensible. Why, then, are you letting it separate loving, married couples?

No American should have to choose between their beloved and their country.

We urge you to take action and instruct federal government agencies to halt the removal of LGBT spouses. There must be a moratorium on the separation of LGBT families while Congress, and the courts, review this injustice and end it once and for all.

We join the 60 Members of Congress who have asked the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop these separations. Loving families should not be forced to live under the threat of deportation, and American citizens should not have their families taken away.

Change.org has a similar petition on these couple's behalf here. It garnered over 3,500 signatures in it's first day.

How Would A Moratorium Work?

This is a perfectly lawful route. Nothing in DOMA prevents the administration from exercising this prosecutorial discretion, which in fact, they have exercised in the past.

Allow legally married LGBT binational couples to apply for marital green cards, same as other couples.

Hold the applications in abeyance. They will essentially go to the bottom of the pile. No residency decision will be made one way or another until DOMA's Constitutionality is resolved. At such a time when that is determined, they will proceed accordingly.
? If the courts find it Constitutional, well, that's bad news. But legislative opportunities may present themselves, like passage of the Respect For Marriage Act, Uniting American Families Act, or comprehensive immigration reform. Or the non-citizen may be asked to leave.
? If DOMA is found unconstitutional, then everyone's happy. The administration can be glad they didn't tear apart a family needlessly over an unconstitutional law. And the couples' application can proceed forward through the application process like any other.

This isn't an idea that's crazy or outside the mainstream. Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano have already been lobbied by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and other 12 senators to take exactly this action. Click on letter above to enlarge, text below:

Specifically, we ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to hold marriage-based immigration petitions in abeyance pending a legislative repeal or a final determination on DOMA litigation. ?In addition, we ask DHS to exercise prosecutorial discretion in commencing and prosecuting removal proceedings against married noncitizens that would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA. ?

We also call upon the Department of Justice to institute a moratorium on orders of removal issued by the immigration courts to married foreign nationals who would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.

Signatories included Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

18 House Representatives lead by Rush Holdt (D-NJ) urged the administration in March to take the same action.

Lavi Soloway, a leading attorney in binational LGBT immigration cases told Metro Weekly in March:

"The best thing for the Department of Justice to be doing now is to be holding off on decisions. We're arriving at a new day, and that means a lot of new opportunities."

Saying, "It's not exactly rocket science," Soloway noted when speaking about these issues previously that the administration "has twice dealt in a very special way with groups of individuals facing deportation."

He explained, "They put a moratorium on the widows of U.S. citizens in 2009, and, in 2010, the administration announced it would defer action on the deportation of individuals who are likely eligible under the DREAM Act. So, the administration has shown that it does use its executive branch muscle when it comes to discretion about who to deport."

The administration has repeatedly assured supporters that its record numbers of deportations include only "violent offenders and people convicted of crimes-not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income." It strains credulity to see how law-abiding LGBT married couples can met this standard. How can Anthony Makk be a deportation priority?

DOMA No Longer Applies In Federal Bankruptcy Court

Oddly, DOMA seems to be an optional law in Federal bankruptcy court, but not immigration court. After initially objecting to a married same-sex couple filing for joint bankruptcy in California's Ninth Circuit, in July the US Trustee withdrew their objection and is allowing the bankruptcy to proceed, as though the couple were married under Federal law.

Following consultation with the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), the U.S. Trustee asked to withdraw its appeal in its challenge to the attempted joint bankruptcy petition filed by Gene Douglas Balas and Carlos Morales, a married gay couple who live in California -- a move a Department of Justice spokeswoman says represents the DOJ's new policy on all such bankruptcy filings.

DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler wrote to Metro Weekly that the July 6 filing in the Balas and Morales case represents a new policy, writing, "The Department of Justice has informed bankruptcy courts that it will no longer seek dismissal of bankruptcy petitions filed jointly by same-sex debtors who are married under state law."

Schmaler was quoted by Reuters as saying the policy change, "avoids generating costly and time-consuming constitutional litigation." This is an odd thing to say as stopping same-sex couples from applying for joint bankruptcy would be enforcing, not litigating, litigation has been tasked to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Maybe the DOJ is too busy brokering settlements for the big banks? In a follow-up report the next day Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner concludes:

The move appears to be the first time that the federal government is, as a matter of policy, recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of applying federal law. Before this week, married same-sex couples' joint bankruptcy petitions were opposed by the government as impermissible under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Good to know that if Bradford and Anthony wanted to go to the Federal poor house together, that would be fine with the administration. Staying together on American soil? Not so much.

Contact Information

BARBARA BOXER

CALIFORNIA

202-224-3553

email

112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

415-403-0100 ?559-497-5109 ?213-894-500 ?619-239-3884

312 N. Spring St. Suite 1748, Los Angeles, CA 90012

DIANE FEINSTEIN

CALIFORNIA

202-224-3841

email

331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

415-393-0707 ?310-914-7300 ?619-231-9712 ?559-485-7430?

11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 915 Los Angeles, CA 90025?

NANCY PELOSI

CALIFORNIA

202-224-3841

email

90 7th Street, Suite 2-800, San Francisco, CA ?94103

(415) 556-4862

235 Cannon HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515

(202) 225-4965

WHITE HOUSE

202-456-1111

email

What Argument Against The Renewed ERA Could Feminists Face?

I wrote a slightly edited down version of this essay for Feministing that posted on August 10, 2011. I believe the ERA is a issue at the intersection of LGBT and women's equal rights.

What would one of the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would likely be if serious community effort were now to be made to pass the amendment into law?

Recently Rachel Maddow ran a segment entitled Equal Rights Amendment Sees Renewed Interest on her MSNBC show. In the segment, she indicated that the ERA has been reintroduced in the House of Representatives {by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)} and the Senate {Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)} as a response to the recent Walmart decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The plain language of the ERA, in the 1970's and now, is as follows:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

In the segment, Maddow identified the 1970's arguments against the ERA to show how poorly those arguments hold up today.

Maddow identified columnist Phyllis Schlafly as the 1970's leading opponent of the ERA. Schlafly's, and her peers', arguments against the ERA included "the potty problem" -- legalization of unisex bathrooms -- as well as the arguments that making men and women equal under the law would make women and men the same thing; would push women out of the home and into the workplace; would allow "homosexuals" to be married, adopt children, and teach in schools; would (under a draft) force women to go into military combat.

Maddow asks the question at the near the end of her piece:

Why couldn't the ERA become law now? Do the arguments from the 1970's still stand up now? Really?

Most of the arguments against the ERA in the 1970's don't hold up as well now -- most of these arguments wouldn't resonate with the general public to the level that these did in the 1970's. You could count on though that the argument about how mandating equality would mean erasing all differences between men and women would still be used as a key argument, as well as the argument against marriage equality.

So if feminist interest, and the general public's interest, in the ERA returned to prominence in the 2010's, what would be the new arguments against the ERA?

I have a good idea what one of the major arguments against the ERA would be.

In the trans community, we refer to a likely argument as the "bathroom bill" meme. It's transgender specific: the argument is that "men in dresses" will enter women's restrooms and prey on women and children in public restrooms. This argument in brought up by religious right adherents pretty much every time employment or public accommodation antidiscrimination legislation that includes protections based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity (e.g. here, here, here, and here).

[More below the fold.]
A radio ad found on the Massachusetts Family Institute's No Bathroom Bill website (and playing on Massachusetts airwaves) is here, and it encapsulates the "bathroom bill" meme into a 30-second spot:

The messaging against trans women in public women's restrooms hasn't changed much since Colorado's SB2. Have a listen to the May 2008 radio ad from Focus On The Family, and listen to the extremely similar messaging:

It doesn't take much of an imagination to see that the same "bathroom bill" meme that's used to argue against ordinary equality for transgender people in antidiscrimination legislation would be used by the religious right and other social conservatives against the ERA.

Should the ERA again become a priority for feminists, the feminist community would then be confronted with choices on how to combat the "bathroom bill" meme:

Feminist community could take the position of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley in arguing that the burden of proof is on those who use the meme to prove that not only is bathroom predation by trans people is significant, and is more significant in jurisdictions that currently have gender identity protections on the books.

Feminist community could also choose embrace the arguments of second wave feminists who -- like those on the religious right -- argue that trans women in women's restrooms are predators, and seek to add language to the ERA that ins some way allows trans women to be excluded from women's restrooms.

Feminist community could also choose not to embrace the ERA because much of the feminist community doesn't accept trans women as women, and they believe that the ERA would result in them having to embrace trans women as their community sisters.

Of course, a fourth alternative is that feminist community so divides over how to approach the "bathroom bill" meme against ERA that the feminist community becomes functionally paralyzed -- or functionally implodes.

So if the ERA should again become a prominent feminist issue, then feminist community is going to have to come to terms with the reality that trans women really exist and, via the "bathroom bill" meme, would be a prominent part of the public discourse about the amendment. In my mind, how the feminist community would come to terms with the reality of trans women is far from settled.

 

Guest column by Rev. Irene Monroe: Out gays barred from Rick Perry's mega prayerfest

By Rev. Irene Monroe

More than 30, 000 people packed Houston's Reliant Stadium to attend Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry's mega prayerfest named "The Response," a clarion call to all Christian Americans for a national day of prayer for our troubled nation.

But lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans -- Christians and non-Christians -- were not invited.

And you wouldn't have known it from Gov. Rick Perry's remarks:

"I'm so humbled to be in the midst of men and women who have answered the call to prayer and fast for our nation. ...Like all of you, I love this country deeply, thank you all for being here."

But the American Family Association (AFA), one of the largest and most influential traditional family values organizations in the country that has over two million online supporters, financed the event. This Tupelo, Miss-based Christian group has activity lobbied against the acceptance of LGBTQ Americans by publicly stating, "We oppose the homosexual movement's efforts to convince our society that their behavior is normal." The AFA unapologetically promotes the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be cured through religious teachings in ex-gay ministries. The organization focuses its anti-gay crusade primarily through television and other media, both nationally and abroad.

For example, in 2007, the AFA spoke out against IKEA for featuring lesbian and gay families in their television ads. In June 2008, the AFA protested a Heinz television ad, shown in the U.K, for featuring two men kissing, and Heinz withdrew the ad. And in July 2008, the AFA boycotted of McDonald's because McDonald's had a director on its board from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

But AFA wasn't the only anti-LGBTQ organization at the rally. Representatives from Tony Perkins's Family Research Council and Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also attended.

Perry stated "The Response" wasn't a disguised platform for his political aspiration to run for the presidency in 2012, but rather a simple Christian rally praying for all Americans, even Obama, during these difficult times.

"We pray for our nation's leaders, Lord, for parents, for pastors, for the generals, for governors, that you would inspire them in these difficult times," Perry told those gathered at Reliant Stadium. "Father, we pray for our President, that you would impart your wisdom upon him, that you would protect his family."

However, I am confused about Perry's role serving the American people. If Perry were a minister who had the backing of anti-gay organizations, I wouldn't be so troubled. But Perry is a governor, whose oath to office is to represent not simply his evangelical conservative base, but rather every citizen in the Lone Star State.

Who would have ever thought that the hard earned gains that have been won to separate the church?an institution that summarily can and has excluded LGBT people?from the state?an institution that we have leverage to be included in?would once again be violated by an elected official, and a Texan no less?

Perry states if he considers a presidential run it will be done in part out of a religious calling. And no doubt, a calling to bow to the Christian Right.

And would we, LGBTQ Americans, not re-experience the Bush era?

Baby Bush (George Walker) unapologetically espoused a theocratic model for government to effect laws and government structures according to his Christian ideal?an ideal that never worked, on the best of his days in office?that egregiously violated the civil rights LGBTQ Americans.

Did I wish Bush had concealed his zeal as a born-again Christian? Not at all!

"Freedom of religion is a good thing. So is freedom from the religion others may wish to impose on those who differ," wrote Charles Kimball, author of When Religion Becomes Evil.

American democracy suffers when people have to be closeted about their faith because it fosters a climate of religious intolerance. And while our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and not freedom from religion, it prohibits the establishment of a state religion. Bush, however, molded his presidency into that of a Christian church-state. And in so doing, his theistic imperative was solely to do the will of God and not the will of the American people.

And in so doing, Bush's eliding of church and state boundaries diminished not only his political authority as a world leader that he so cherished, but it also diminishes one of the central objectives he wanted to obtain during his presidency?moral authority.

Perry's rally positioned him as having moral authority, but he's no friend to LGBTQ Americans. He opposes same-sex marriages, and he vehemently opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, which struck down a Texas same-sex anti-sodomy law.

However, for Perry to have moral authority, he cannot as a governor call Americans to a Christian rally that by its invitation and sponsors exclude LGBT people, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and many others. And he cannot impose his religious views into the fabric of American democracy.

If Ann Coulter is a 'gay icon,' then I am a busty white woman with a good tan

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

(Matt) Barber also comments on the spiritually, physically, and emotionally destructive homosexual lifestyle. "There is nothing conservative about the radical homosexual activist agenda which seeks to impose, under penalty of law, sexual anarchy," he states.

Ronald Reagan said it best - "there he goes again." The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is yet again conjuring up depraved fantasies about the gay community. He can't help it. It's what he does and to be honest, it has gotten him paid much money.

Barber no doubts probably thinks that the position he is in - a dean at a college - albeit a piss poor one, a radio show host, a nice column on several conservative sites - is proof that God is shining on him.

If you will forgive me for being presumptous, based on Barber's comments and exploits, such as making the following comment about gay relationships:

“one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love."

I think it's proof that God has a strange sense of humor.

In this particular case, Barber is whining about the conservative gay group GoProud, appointing the loudmouth firebrand Ann Coulter to its advisory board and naming her "Honorary Chair and Gay Icon."

Apparently GoProud, which may or may not have a much deserved reputation of being the Uncle Toms of the gay rights movement, didn't get enough of Coulter's insults Homocon, when she insulted the idea of marriage equality.
What's up guys? Wasn't Michele Bachmann available. And I don't mean that as a joke. As I understand it, in spite of her long history of homophobia, GoProud was going to try and "reach out to her."

That would have made things very interesting because it would have been the first time I would have seen an elephant reaching its trunk out to a hungry alligator.

Personally I am more concerned with the anointing of Coulter as a "gay icon." That bothers the hell out of me. Gay icons are people - usually women - with indomitable spirit who perseveres in spite of the odds and opposition by haters trying to keep them down.

Since when did gays start anointing the "haters" as icons.

If there is any justice in this world, true gay icons such as Judy Garland, Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford would come back to life and take Ms. Coulter for a "private conversation" in the ladies room.

But since this is real life, I can only hope that this madness between GoProud, Coulter, and folks like Barber will lead to a three-way spontaneous combustion.

The world would definitely be a much better place because of it.

WaPo Columnist: Rick Santorum Is Running Against Dan Savage

I recently discovered a humor columnist at the Washington Post, Alexandra Petri. She has some pretty brilliant humorous but insightful takes on Michele Bachmann's Newsweek cover, Obama's fireside chat and others. We could all use some help redirecting our tears to laughs these days, right?

Petri admits with chagrin that she's enjoying following the Santorum trainwreck of a campaign and although tongue in cheek, her assessment of why the fail is so strong is pretty pretty spot-on. Petri recognizes Santorum faced a fork in the road in dealing with his "Google problem":

But what can you do? At a certain point you either surrender, call off the dogs, and go sit somewhere wracked with the vague sense that Things Might Have Gone Differently But For Google, or you double down.

Santorum has picked the double down route. It's profitable enough to keep his name in the news, but it's not winning him the nomination or the respect of the GOP donor base.

The problem, Rick Santorum is not running against Barack Obama, he's running against Dan Savage.
In fact there was a graceful way out for Santorum and Dan Savage opened the negotiations last year with this:

"If Rick Santorum wants to make a $5 million donation to [the gay marriage group] Freedom to Marry, I will take it down. Interest starts accruing now."

Granted, $5 million is a lot of money, but it is opening negotiation point and smart negotiators start high. Dan likely might have settled for less, particularly if it included an agreement that Rick would clean up his potty mouth in public, and stop comparing marriage equality to man-on-dog sex. But Savage never heard from Santorum's people at all.

Instead, Santorum has adopted a strategy of "doubling down," thinking, delusionally, if he just fought the gays harder, he'd eventually prevail. Petri examines in WaPo what that strategy has wrought:

What's worse than Santorum's Google problem - his Savage problem

The strange irony of all this is that Santorum and Savage are forever bound by this feud, coupled together in the annals of history as arch-nemeses. Batman and Joker. Superman and Lex Luthor. Santorum and Savage. It's an unbreakable bond, although the identity of the parties (who's Lex?) varies depending on whom you ask.

This is a bigger problem for Santorum than for Savage, who appears to have other hobbies, including an MTV show in the works.

But for Santorum, it's been the kiss of death. Santorum hasn't been running against Barack Obama. He's been running against Dan Savage, a syndicated sex columnist. It's hard to blame him. His opposition to Obama is theoretical. But thanks to Dan Savage, his name is quite literally mud.

These days, as Savage grasped instinctively, there is nothing worse than having a Google problem. It's one thing to embarrass yourself in real life. But people have far shorter attention spans than the Internet. It's like an elephant with a strong preference for pornography.

And it's true. Democrats might consider hiring Dan to run a 527, and teach them something about how one controls the conversation in politics to the Republicans' disadvantage. Santorum continues to exist only because of Dan Savage. And he's keeping the lights on thanks to Wingnut Welfare, and utilizing his martyrdom to attempt to fill his near-empty coffers.

But he's not a Presidential player. Serious candidates can't let themselves get bogged down in protracted feuds with loudmouth syndicated sex columnists. This strategy isn't helping him break 3% in the GOP primary polling, or attract serious donors  from the GOP base (he's got $229,000 in the bank).

Poor Ricky. The good news is the Wingnut Welfare rolls are lousy with has-beens like Santorum.  

Cathy Brennan & Elizabeth Hungerford take their anti-trans activism to the UN

Note: Last week I wrote a diary similar to this one.  It and other diaries and comments posted over a period last Friday-Saturday got scrubbed from the database due to a glitch in an upgrade conducted by Soapblox (our current host platform).  I didn't have a backup copy of the diary. Since it doesn't appear that it will be restored any time soon, I have re-written it from memory and with the help of fragments captured on other websites. Responding to a Call for Communications: Human Rights Violations Affecting the Status of Women posted by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women, lesbian attorneys Cathy Brennan and Elizabeth Hungerford submitted a letter last week opposing laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity and expression.

[The] proliferation of legislation designed to protect "gender identity"  and "gender expression" undermines legal protections for females vis-a-vis sex segregated spaces, such as female-only clubs, public restrooms, public showers, and other spaces designated as "female only".  Females require sex-segregated facilities for number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of male sexual violence against females and the uniquely female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence.xxi

Brennan & Hungerford are alleging that laws protecting all our rights - but in particular trans women's rights - to use public bathrooms and locker rooms puts non-trans women at greater risk of predation by men.  It's "bathroom bill" rhetoric dressed up to look like feminism.

The problem for Brennan & Hungerford is that their allegations about the consequences of including gender identity in anti-discrimination laws are not only dehumanizing to trans people, they're based on intellectual dishonesty and the same fear mongering used by the radical religious-right.

Like Brennan & Hungerford, I am a lesbian born with a female brain and a female body.  (For a trans woman's take on the letter, read Mercedes Allen's post at Bilerico.)  Unlike Brennan & Hungerford, I demand solid reasoning from anyone who would seek to deprive a class of people of their civil rights.  So when I see members of my demographic jumping on the international stage, engaging in intellectual dishonesty while seeking to deprive others of their rights, I am compelled to call them out lest my silence be interpreted as tacit support.  It is not.
1. Where's the evidence of harm?

The burden of proof is on Brennan & Hungerford to make the case that non-trans women will be harmed if trans women's right to access public accommodations is protected by law.  They fail to meet that burden, instead writing as if evidence exists.  It is a stunning display of intellectual dishonesty.

Laws are already on the books in 15 states and the District of Columbia (PDF) protecting people against discrimination in public accommodations based on gender identity and expression.  Minnesota's law has been in force for 18 years, and laws in nine other states have been in force for at least 5 years.  If these laws were a threat to female safety in public facilities, there has been plenty of time for that threat to manifest. It has not. There simply does not exist any evidence of the harm that Brennan & Hungerford allege.

Brennan & Hungerford's only attempt at providing evidence to support their thesis is to bury a link to the web page "Men in women's bathrooms" in footnote xxi.  The web page lists uncorroborated newspaper accounts of men allegedly transgressing the boundries of decency or the law in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.  Despite the page author's apparent concern for the safety and privacy of women in such facilities, she only provides one American newspaper article describing a confirmed case of one cross-dressed individual charged and released on the same day for indecency in a public women's restroom.  

That's it.  That's the sum of their "evidence".  In a country of over 307,000,000 people, Brennan & Hungerford have only provided one (1) newspaper story about one (1) cross-dressed individual arrested for indecency in a public bathroom.  One in 307 million.  It is no wonder that they buried their "evidence" in a footnote, since it undermines their thesis by showing that the frequency of trans women or cross-dressed individuals endangering females in public facilities is so rare as to be virtually nil.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley certainly isn't buying into Brennan & Hungerford's thesis.  In a recent letter to legislative leaders in support of the Transgender Equal Rights Bill (H. 502/5. 764) now before the Massachusetts Legislature, Coakley wrote:

Over the past several years, opponents of this legislation have attempted to stoke fears about the public safety implications of this bill. Just last week, opponents began running radio ads that mischaracterize the bill to foster fear and bigotry, specifically by terming it the "bathroom bill" and threatening that its passage will permit men to dress as women for the purpose of entering restrooms to engage in unlawful conduct and claim protection under this law. Given the incorrect and unfortunate misconceptions generated by such statements, I wish to address this issue directly.

First, this bill does nothing to change existing laws in place to prosecute and punish individuals who engage in criminal conduct. As a prosecutor for more than 25 years, I can emphatically state that this bill only increases our ability to prosecute criminal conduct and protect the civil rights of all, and does nothing to restrict our ability to protect victims of any crimes. All people should be able to use restrooms and locker rooms in safety and with privacy, and that would remain the case under this new law. Allowing transgender people to use facilities that comport with their gender identity and how they live their lives is the safest and most workable approach and one that reduces further stigmatization. It is also the policy of the federal government as set forth by the Office of Personal Management which now requires federal employers to allow their employees to use the restroom or locker room consistent with their gender identity.

Second, inherent in this harmful commentary is the implication that transgender individuals are sex offenders or sexually deviant persons. Not only is this characterization inaccurate, it is deeply offensive and insulting. I note for the Committee that our office is unaware of a single instance where an individual has attempted to use this type of gender identity or expression protection as a defense to claims of criminal conduct or violation of privacy in any of the jurisdictions that have passed similar laws. Contrary to some of the commentary, it does not extend any new protections to sex offenders.

2.  Misrepresenting anti-discrimination laws.

Brennan & Hungerford claim repeatedly throughout their letter that

"gender identity" legislation incorporates stereotypical ideas of "what is female" into the law.

This is a puzzling claim, since gender identity anti-discrimination laws do precisely the opposite.  This is clear when reading the relevant portions of the laws, which Brennan & Hungerford quote extensively in the body and footnotes of their letter.  The text of the laws in the following states, as provided by Brennan & Hungerford in their letter, is typical for such state laws:

* Nevada defines "gender identity or expression" as a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth.

* Hawaii defines "gender identity or expression" includes (sic) a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

I placed "regardless of" in bold text to emphasize that far from encoding sex stereotypes into the law, these laws protect people from discrimination based on sex stereotypes.

3.  Overblown claims of victimhood.

The radical religious-right has made a veritable industry of claiming to be the targets of systematic harassment and threats by the groups that they malign and seek to deprive of civil rights, namely gays and trans people (cf ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen and Doe v. Reed).  It is disappointing to see two lesbian activists using a similar tactic.

In the opening paragraph of their letter, Brennan & Hungerford write that

Finally, individual GLBT activists have threatened individuals like us who oppose this development in an attempt to silence us from raising legitimate concerns about this legislation.

The reader must burrow into the unrelated footnote iii to learn that "individuals like us" is really just Cathy Brennan.

Nobody deserves to be threatened or harassed for stating their opinions, no matter how objectionable those opinions may be.  I have seen one of the threatening comments aimed at Cathy Brennan, and it is disgusting and beyond the pale.  However, Brennan & Hungerford lose credibility and when they make false claims about the magnitude of threats and harassment allegedly aimed at those who share their viewpoint.

4.  Failure to present a viable alternative.

Brennan & Hungerford propose an alternate definition for "gender identity" that they would support:

We support the following definition of "gender identity" - a person's identification with the sex opposite her or his physiology or assigned sex at birth, which can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of a transsexual medical condition, or related condition, as deemed medically necessary by the American Medical Association."

If a law using this language were adopted, any person entering a public bathroom, fitting room or locker room could literally be asked to "show me your papers".  Unless all citizens are to be deputized, the police would presumably enforce this law.  This would clearly violate the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition of unreasonable searches by the government.

There are other deficiencies in Brennan & Hungerford's letter to the United Nations, but those identified above should be enough to illustrate the vacuousness of their claims and the dishonesty of their tactics.  I encourage the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women to use their letter as an example of the sort of dehumanizing vilification that trans people are often the target of and need to be protected from.

Related:

* No Matter Who Expresses The Sentiments, Antitrans Sentiments Are Antitrans Sentiments

Little Ricky Santorum: Marriage is like water, not beer (and a napkin)

This man is not right in the head . And he wants to be your President. The GOP Clown Car lives up to the moniker with every public appearance by the occupants...

Rick Santorum turned more than a few eyebrows on Monday when he explained his opposition to same-sex marriage by holding up a napkin and observing that it was not a paper towel. On Friday, during a meeting with the Des Moines Register, Santorum relied on a similar metaphor to prove why society can't "redefine" marriage: water is not beer. "It's like saying this glass of water is a glass of beer. Well, you can call it a glass of beer, but it's not a glass of beer. It's a glass of water. And water is what water is. Marriage is what marriage is," he said. Watch it:

Resolution On "Gays Go To The Back Of The Bus" Case

From the Advocate, Gold says the picture was taken moments before the incident.

Last month singer Ari Gold reported he and his boyfriend had been harrassed on a New York commuter bus for holding hands. Gold first told his story on Facebook, it was then reported by Michael Musto in the Village Voice, and later Gold told a fuller account to The Advocate magazine. Seems the driver of a bus told Gold he and his boyfriend would have to go to the back of the bus if they wanted to hold hands.

From The Advocate:

We were in the very front row seat by the side of the driver. The driver had no reason to even be looking at us. We were not behind him disturbing him; we weren't even in his mirror sight.  All he had to do was turn his head and look at us. He was the second driver. He came on to the bus [when] they switched drivers. When he came on the bus my boyfriend and I were already sitting together, so he could have seen us when he came on. He said if you want to sit like that you can sit in the back. We told him we didn't want to. He said if we want to sit like that he'd call the state troopers and have us kicked off the bus.

And that's what the driver attempted to do. He actually called the cops to have the men ejected from the bus. Fortunately, the cop didn't comply with the driver's request, he instructed the driver that the couple was not acting illegally, and advised the driver to continue along the route. The trooper also didn't comply with Gold's request they take a police report, which is troubling.

And, every passenger on the bus got held up so this driver could have his little homophobic fit.

We now have a resolution to this story, after the fold.
On July 14, Lambda Legal wrote to the president of Short Line Bus Company, George Grieve, on behalf of Ari Gold. The letter said in part:

It seems clear that your driver would not have challenged Mr. Gold and his boyfriend-much less summoned law enforcement-had they been a heterosexual couple. Based on their sexual orientation, your driver denied them the opportunity to peacefully enjoy your company's services and to arrive promptly at their destination. Case law shows that even though an individual may be able to engage the core function of a service and ultimately reach their destination, being subject to harassment in the course of doing so exposes the discriminating entity to liability.  (See, for example, Bumpus v. New York City Transit Auth., 859 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008), aff'd on other grounds, 66 A.D.3d 26, 883 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 2009)).

The treatment Mr. Gold and his boyfriend endured violates the laws of New York City, New York State,  and New Jersey. On behalf of Mr. Gold, Lambda Legal seeks specific assurances that the driver of the bus has been appropriately disciplined, and that policies and training have been implemented to educate employees on relevant nondiscrimination law and to ensure compliance, so that no other customers encounter discriminatory treatment.  Mr. Gold also requests an apology and refund of the price of his tickets, and notes that it may also be appropriate to compensate other riders who were affected by the bus driver's actions.

Lambda Legal is today reporting:

After several telephone and email exchanges, on August 5, Lambda Legal received both oral and written confirmation from Short Line Bus Company of measures it has committed to taking throughout the company to address discrimination. The company reiterated its commitment to nondiscrimination laws and said that the driver has been disciplined and would also receive sensitivity training and training on nondiscrimination laws. The company will also mandate further antidiscrimination training for all its drivers, including annual "refreshers."  Lambda Legal is providing input on the training plan. The company also apologized for the behavior Mr. Gold and his boyfriend experienced, and will refund the cost of their tickets.

So..., apology, refund, reprimand and training for the driver, training for all drivers, and a continuing education program.

Pretty comprehensive show of penance by the company, I'd say.

Lambda Legal says:

"Lambda Legal is always prepared to go to the courts when members of the LGBT community face discrimination, but we're pleased when it doesn't have to come to that. Short Line's swift and serious response shows this company knows that doing the right thing is also good business. "

Lambda Legal includes this statement from Gold:

"I am so grateful to Lambda Legal for helping me use my platform as a singer/songwriter and activist to bring attention to an issue that happens way too often to people whose voices don't get heard enough.  I am even more pleased that something that was initially very negative to experience has turned into something positive because of the actions taken by Short Line Bus Company to ensure that something like this will not happen again.  I hope more corporations will follow suit. Maybe in the future all corporations will be held responsible for implementing their own sensitivity/harassment training and not wait for another person's civil rights to be violated."

Companies can not be expected to police their employees full time, particularly on occasions when they work without any on-site supervisor, such as a bus driver. Unfortunate incidents will occur.

But what companies can do is be very clear with their employees what is acceptable behavior and what is intolerable, and some people will need training to understand that. Short Line Bus Company made a promise in the wake of disclosure of this incident to take it seriously, telling the Village Voice:

"I am the president of Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. which is the company known as Shortline. I wanted to assure you and your readers that we do not condone or endorse the actions taken by this one driver. His actions are not representative of the management of our Company.

"We will continue to investigate this incident until we are sure we have all the facts at which time we will take the appropriate disciplinary and remedial action. We apologize for the insensitive action of our driver and can assure you we will take the necessary steps to make sure this does not happen again.

Now, in my opinion they have made good on that promise.

So, good for them, and good for Ari for standing tall in the face of what was surely a difficult, infuriating and disappointing incident. And good for Lambda Legal for being there for the LGBT community. Everyone wins. Well, except for the bigot.

Onward to the day when lesbians will be allowed to hold hands at Gertrude Stein exhibits!