Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 52

There Really Is Going To Be That Meeting Over There

The Obama Administration told the Washington Blade -- in their Wednesday, April 27, 2011 article White House To Host First Ever Trans Meeting -- that there is going to be a "White House meeting"  where "transgender activists intend to discuss federal policy issues" on Friday, April 29, 2011. The meeting is being described as "the first [meeting] ever held by the Office of Public Engagement to focus solely on trans issues." From Chris Johnson's  Washington Blade article (emphasis added):

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the meeting, which is set to take place Friday at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, will include transgender leaders who work on federal policy.

"OPE routinely holds meetings with various stakeholders to discuss various policy issues," Inouye said. "Friday's meeting, like most OPE meetings, will be closed press and off the record."

This meeting, which Pam's House Blend reported on in the piece The Secret White House Trans Meeting That Should Come Out Of The Closet, is now somewhat out of the closet. The meeting been publicly acknowledged by the White House and a presumed major participant -- Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE).

"This is the first president who has allowed trans people -- really allowed LGBT people -- to bring forward problems and then advocate for them," Keisling said. "In the Bush administration, we couldn't even do that. They wouldn't even listen to us. They didn't care what our problems were. In fact, they were making most of our problems."

I found this comment by Michael Silverman, the executive director for the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), within the Washington Blade piece interesting:

There was concern at the start that this was a quote-unquote secret meeting and [the fact] that the White House is speaking about it publicly demonstrates there is a commitment to meeting with transgender people and to addressing their needs.

Well, yes and no.

It is significant that the White House is having a meeting on trans issues at this point -- it's significant if they have that kind of meeting at any point.

However, 1.) we're about two-and-a-half years into the Obama Presidency, and a first meeting on transgender equality issues at this point seems late in the term from the administration of the President who in his campaign stated he was going to be a "fierce advocate" for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. 2.) Any attempt to keep the gist of the progress addressed in the meeting secret at this point is going to be poor political practice. Again, to quote President Obama from the President's Welcoming Senior Staff And Cabinet Secretaries address of January 9, 2009:

[More below the fold.]

The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being made, and whether their interests are being well served.

...Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

3.) A meeting for a meeting's sake shows trans community it now has access to the White House halls of power, but access alone can never be a goal in and of itself. We in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and especially transgender community need to see that access results in the causes of freedom, equality, and justice being forwarded for our community members.

Let me be clear about something: Every item discussed in the scheduled trans meeting does not have to be divulged -- negotiation can and should happen behind closed doors.

And, I know that at least for Mara Keisling and NCTE, their public agenda is known -- I know in broad terms what NCTE is going to bring as an agenda to the table. I'm on the same page as NCTE when it comes to the trans equality agenda, so I'm not very worried about what issues NCTE, though its executive director, are going to bring to the table behind closed doors and out of public earshot.

But that said, after seeing the White House not exactly be the "fierce advocate" White House pushing DADT repeal during the last congress, and see the White House not push the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the last Congress at all, access to the White House halls of power by LGBT civil rights non-profits doesn't necessarily result in the White House being the "fierce advocate" White House many of us hoped for when President Obama took office.

We don't need the White House staffers to hold a listening meeting instead of an action meeting at this point; I also don't accept White House spokesperson Shin Inouye's comment that this meeting needs to be completely off the record.

The LGBT community now definitively knows that a meeting on transgender issues between LGBT non-profits and the Obama Administration is occurring on Friday, April 28, 2011. I know I'm not alone in wanting to hear what the Obama Administration plans to do to forward the freedom, equality, and justice of transgender community members in the LGBT community.

Mara Keisling has a lever now that she didn't have before the existence of this Obama Administration transgender issues meeting was made public. She can say words to this effect to the White House staffers at the meeting:

I didn't publicize this meeting, but the transgender community found out about this meeting, and now the community has real expectations. What are you in the Obama Administration going to do between now and Pride Month with regards to public policy based on gender identity and expression? What about between now and the end of President Obama's first term?

The whole LGBT community is watching what comes out of this meeting, and your administration is going to be held to public account if nothing but 'listening' is what comes out of this meeting -- I won't publicly do it after this meeting, but others who are aware of this meeting no doubt will.

I don't know if Mara Keisling will use that lever, but I'm quite sure she knows she has that lever -- she didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I'm putting my trust and faith in Mara to use what power she has in this meeting to forward ordinary equality for the members of our subcommunity of the LGBT community.

Y'all know The Secret White House Trans Meeting That Should Come Out Of The Closet

.

Donald Trump to black reporter: 'I Know You're A Big Obama Fan'

I know Birther Donald Trump has said he is friends with "the blacks," but I find it hard to believe he has any left after the last two weeks of hyper non-subliminal racist bloviating.

This time, it's a ridiculous exchange with Les Trent, a reporter for Inside Edition that's supposed to be infrastructure investments. Trent's black, so apparently his race makes it self-evident to Trump that he's big on "the brother" in the White House no matter the topic at hand. Another entry for the ages, via Think Progress:

TRUMP:When was the last time - if you go to China, as an example - bridges being built, massive bridges. When is the last time we built a bridge in this country, other than a little toy.

LES TRENT: Isn't that what President Obama tried to do with his stimulus package?

TRUMP: The President... Look I know you are a big Obama fan.The president doesn't know what he's doing.

LES TRENT: Why do you say that?

TRUMP: Because of your question. The President doesn't know what he is doing.

***

Meanwhile, Trump got his knickers in a twist at being tagged with the label. Veteran journalist Bob Schieffer took off Trump's color-aroused mask. The Donald took umbrage (TMZ):

Bob Schieffer delivered a scathing statement against Trump Wednesday night on the "CBS Evening News," reacting to Trump's insinuation that President Barack Obama may not have had the grades to get into Harvard.

Schieffer said, "That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black.  This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing."

[Trump:] "That is a terrible statement for a newscaster to make.  I am the last person that such a thing should be said about."

Please keep it going, Donald. We need you in the 2012 Blend GOP Clown Car. Make it official ASAP.

Good fortune for lesbian blog Autostraddle - and a message about financial sustainability of blogs

NOTE: I'll be on the Mike Signorile Show today at 2:30 to talk about Righthaven and its impact on blogs (oy, I need to nap first; I'm still sick). He had on reps from the Electronic Frontier Foundation yesterday.I have to congratulate the team at Autostraddle - they held a fundraising campaign and readership responded -- they raised $20K in a week!

Pam's House Blend is mentioned several times in the post, in the context of the difficulty of holding a full-time job (and a necessary second job thanks to Righthaven), and, that's right, the blog. Riese notes:

There's a consensus that readers will not pay for content.

But Autostraddle has survived primarily on your donations and investments and hard work for two years now. So what gives?

I understand that our success in raising funds is due to a lot of intangible/specific elements of our readership which I don't know how to put into words yet. Sometimes I am so sure of a thing that I feel like the words I need to describe it haven't been invented yet.

I have to say I've never held a real aggressive fundraising campaign at PHB, and reader contributions are quite meager (though welcome!) in relation to any revenue generated by ads. I don't do the quarterly or annual "asks" that some blogs do. No judgment on my part. I've considered what I do a labor of love, but when you hit the wall (or get hit by a copytroll), it's pretty clear you can't subsidize PHB forever. Riese hits the nail on the head:

But what I can talk about, what I do have wise words on regarding "The State of the LGBT Blogosphere," is that creating anything more than a personal blog, especially when you're reporting actual news, isn't feasible as a long-term "side project" with no goal/end in sight. Your facts must be impeccable, you must prepare to deal with trolls and bigots, you will be held just as accountable for your work as paid journalists are. There's an expiration date on that kind of energy. We need to demolish this misconception that something as awesome and reliable as Pam's House Blend can be anybody's eternal easy-to-accomplish "hobby" or that these semi-large projects will follow a "blog on the side until the money pours in and you can quit your job and dedicate yourself to your blog" trajectory if your blog is super amazing and you just work hard enough and manage your time properly.

Um. Yeah. But I often get the "how do you do all of this" question, and I have to say "I don't know, but I'm running on fumes" after 7 years of this.

More below the fold.
Since no one has to pay for entry into the coffeehouse, it's pretty easy to sustain the fantasy that this is some sort of breaking news service when it's pretty clear that if this weren't a group blog we'd be woefully late on many stories, all dependent on who's online and available to do a story -- we're not doing this full-time and never sell PHB as a news service, but alas we still get the "why aren't you covering this" emails all the time. Riese:

Where does that idea come from?

+ People don't understand how much time this all takes.

+ People assume that a blogger's "day job" will somehow involve earning a salary/benefits while sitting at a computer secretly operating a blog. (Which is classist and stupid! I've never had a job that demanded less than 100% of my consistent attention, and I've really only had one job ever that even involved a computer.)

+ Because blogging is THEIR hobby, they think it should be everyone's hobby. Anyone who can't blog and work full-time is just a bad organizer because look, they have a job AND posted 25 pictures of their dog yesterday on tumblr!

The biggest internet success stories start, like all print publications, like Gawker, HuffPo and Nerve.com, with start-up funds and full-time people. A sustainable model requires somebody's full-time attention, which means it also requires somebody's full-time salary.

Therefore she aptly notes that if you have no start-up funds or a corporate backer you have to take a leap of faith and depend solely on ads and donations and aggressively encourage readers, if they care about the existence of a particular blog they like, to "subscribe" just as you would any magazine. However as mentioned above, most readers don't want to pay if it can be obtained for free. But there's always this feeling of impending judgment for those bloggers who take the risk and go without that full-time job:

Among many other expenses, a major place where your donations go is to sustain my LIFE and Laneia's LIFE. Yet we undervalue ourselves. We avoid financial questions 'cause we feel judged/insecure that we'll simply be written off as irresponsible for not somehow holding down another job on top of Autostraddle.

Nobody asks the editors of AfterEllen or SheWired what they do for their "day jobs" or if they have "a trust fund or something" - it's understood that their work commands a salary and gets it.

And that's one reason why blogs can fold -- or flourish -- flourish being a relative word, since that some of us cannot take the risk. Bottom line is that I cannot quit my day job because I need the health insurance (thanks Obamacare, I'm not helped at all). So I hope the healthy younger lesbians at Autostraddle have figured out that problem, for their sake.

In conclusion, the only sustainable model I can suggest to anyone not employed by Viacom is to be completely fucking insane, accept life at the poverty line, have really talented friends, and to love your readers in hopes that they will love you back.

All in all, I was happy to see the subject of sustainable models for blogs tackled in a way that is crystal clear and blunt about what it takes -- and the responsibility we all have to preserve a fragile medium that brings news, commentary and culture to a movement.

In the end, I'm still torn about what to do about PHB, but I do have possibilities that I am considering that could keep the coffeehouse alive, perhaps in another form. But we're not going completely away. The baristas continue to churn out great brew, and even the bastards of Righthaven can't keep us down.  

More Birther madness: Taitz kicked off of O'Donnell's show; Trump continues narcissistic meltdown

I have been pretty out of it for a couple of days (neuropathy again), so I haven't been able to do more than put out a few Tweets and Facebook posts, but I had to put this up because the birther madness is simply out of control.

The President put out his long-form birth certificate, basically to shut up Donald Trump (who at this point is either a plant by Dems or is terminally narcissistic batsh*t), but it has only served to up the ante for birthers like Orly Taitz. She was on the Lawrence O'Donnell show and he just got plain tired of the trash.

Expecting an apology from Orly Taitz she instead went off on a rant about President Obama lying about his social security number. Unable to get her to comment on the birth certificate, O'Donnell tells his crew to get her out of here. Get her off this show.

At TPM Muckracker, it's clear Taitz is off-the-rails in questioning the birth certificate. The ignorance is astounding:

Specifically, Taitz thinks that the birth certificate should peg Obama's race as "Negro" and not "African."

"In those years ... when they wrote race, they were writing 'Negro' not 'African'," Taitz says. "In those days nobody wrote African as a race, it just wasn't one of the options. It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961 when they wrote white or Asian or 'Negro'."

Taitz says she's not giving up her fight. She also claims Obama isn't a "natural born citizen" because she uses a standard that requires both parents to be American citizens -- a misreading of the Constitution which if enforced would have rendered several other American Presidents ineligible.

Back to The Donald, he gave a bizarre press conference where he declared to the world that he was "very proud of himself" for purportedly forcing Obama to release the long form birth certificate.

Satisfied with himself he also questioned how Obama could have gotten into Harvard - as if his grades didn't suffice. Well, gee, can we talk about former POTUS George W. Bush's legacy entry into Yale?

Former WH Press Sec Robert Gibbs also raised the issue of Trump's promise to release his taxes when the birth certificate was produced. Wouldn't you know it - The Donald is now stalling. (The Politico):

"Donald Trump said he'd release his tax returns as soon as the president released his birth certificate, so the ball is in his court now and I know everybody is anxious to see his tax returns over the last 10 years," Gibbs told POLITICO.

At a Wednesday morning news conference in New Hampshire following the president's release of his birth certificate, Trump repeatedly ignored questions about whether he'd fulfill his pledge.

Also see:

* The Onion: Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He's Not A Festering Pile Of Sh*t.

National Organization for Marriage needs to get off of its phony cross

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The National Organization for Marriage says that it's going to investigate why the law firm handpicked by Speaker of the House John Boehner to defend DOMA decided not to take the case:

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a conservative organization fighting against the legalization of same-sex marriage, said Monday it would launch an "investigation" into the decision of the law firm King & Spalding to drop its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

"We will convene a panel of legal experts and ethicists to determine if any rules of professional conduct have been violated, or if the firm has acted illegally in reaching their decision," NOM President Brian Brown said in a statement posted on their website. "We already know they have violated the moral imperative of acting in good faith and fair dealing. If our review concludes that the firm has violated any statutes or rules of professional conduct, we will initiate the appropriate disciplinary complaints."

At the same time, NOM is claiming that the lgbt community "bullied" the law firm into deciding not to take the case:

Same-sex marriage advocates have launched yet another campaign of cultural intimidation—pressuring the nation's top law firms in an attempt to silence and marginalize those who would stand for marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act.

If NOM really wanted to know the truth, they should read this very thorough article in the Huffington Post by Jennifer Bendery which points out that it was a combination of outside pressure and pressure from employees inside the firm (who were totally caught by surprise by the decision to defend DOMA) which led to the backtrack.

But who am I really kidding, really? NOM is simply exploiting this situation to get a moment in the spotlight and maybe even wrench some money from its gullible supporters (as if it doesn't get enough from mysterious money source which it fights tooth and nail not to reveal).

But here is the thing which bothers me.

For all of NOM's talk about intimidation, isn't this the same group which was part of a coalition that sent out a letter to 30 organizations during the Proposition 8 vote in California demanding that they support the effort to ban gay marriage in the state or "be outed as an opponent of traditional marriage"?

And didn't NOM spend over $235,000 on a recent campaign to recall three Iowa judges, not for any judicial malfeasance, but simply because those judges ruled against the state's defense of marriage act?

In terms of intimidation, NOM has written the book. Perhaps the group is upset because organizations whom it doesn't agree with are reading and editing that book?

Rhode Island Surrenders. Marriage Equality Bites the Dust. Again.

The Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, Gordon Fox, officially conceded today that there is not enough support in the Legislature to pass a marriage equality bill.

House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay and is a leading supporter of the gay marriage bill, says that it's clear the bill won't overcome opposition in the Senate. Fox, a Providence Democrat, says he'll instead sponsor civil union legislation giving same-sex couples the same state rights given to married couples.

The announcement deals a major setback to advocates of gay marriage in the Ocean State. They had called civil unions a poor substitute for full marriage. Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed's opposition was seen as a key obstacle to the bill's passage. In a statement to reporters, she says she supports civil union legislation and is confident it will pass.

Despite polling on the issue that has repeatedly and consistently showed broad-based support for marriage equality in Rhode Island, its Legislature could not find the courage to support what the majority of Rhode Islanders support.

PPP, February 22, 2011:


"Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?"


Favor: 50%, Oppose: 41%

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, July 22, 2010:


"Do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally?"


Favor: 59% Oppose: 31%

Brown University, 5/09:


"Would you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?"


Support: 60% Oppose: 31%

Instead, in what is becoming a trend, Rhode Island seems likely to join Delaware, Illinois and Hawaii in this year passing 'everything but marriage' civil unions legislation. And unless New York State somehow manages to find at least six Republican legislators to vote for marriage equality, the prospect of any state legislature enacting same-sex marriage legislation in 2011, or even 2012, seems dim.

What has seemed inevitable giving polling trends -- state-by-state marriage equality -- now seems dangerously close for the foreseeable future to shifting into neutral with a strong possibility to move into reverse (New Hampshire).

Here is Speaker Gordon Fox's letter to his colleagues in the House. Read it and weep.

Dear Colleague:




Although my personal position on marriage equality has not changed, I have always been a practical person and I believe my pragmatism is one of the reasons why I was elected Speaker of the House.

I recognize that this is a chamber comprised of members who represent very different constituencies, beliefs, and priorities that must be balanced. Based on individual discussions with many of you, I understand how difficult the marriage equality issue has been.

Based on your input, along with the fact that it is now clear to me that there is no realistic chance for passage of the bill in the Senate, I will recommend that the House not move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill during this legislative session. I will instead support full passage of a civil unions' bill that grants important and long overdue legal rights to same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

I have had conversations with Senate leadership and, unlike the marriage equality bill, I am optimistic that a civil unions' bill can gain passage in both chambers during this legislative session.

The new civil union bill is currently being drafted and will soon be ready for introduction and public inspection. I will be one of the sponsors.

Because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress in 1996, the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages and therefore federal rights are not granted to same sex couples who get married in states that allow it. For example, same sex partners married in Massachusetts are not granted federal rights such as the right to file joint federal tax returns.

Even with passage of a marriage equality bill such as the one currently pending in our House Judiciary Committee, same sex couples married in Rhode Island would not be given access to those federal rights. However, passage of the civil unions' bill that I will be supporting will grant same sex couples all state rights guaranteed to married couples in Rhode Island. I believe passage of such a measure will be a significant accomplishment in helping to ensure equality to all Rhode Islanders.

As both a long-time supporter of marriage equality and a sponsor of the bill, this is not a decision that I have reached without deep thought, long deliberation, and emotional debate in my own mind and heart.

Throughout my 19 years as a State Representative, I have always worked under the guiding principle that a leader must make a pragmatic decision to forge a path to achieve positive results. With that principle in mind, I am confident that we will quickly obtain the necessary support and votes in both chambers to secure these important and necessary rights for all same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

From the outset of this session, I made a commitment to both the House members and to all our citizens that while I would address the inequalities that exist for same-sex couples in their everyday life, there are other pressing issues that the House must address as well. The passage of our state's budget during these difficult economic times remains paramount.

Today, I publicly renew my commitment to ensuring the granting of important legal rights to partners in committed relationships throughout Rhode Island. I hope for swift passage of a civil unions' bill in the weeks ahead, as well as many other significant pieces of legislation, including our state's challenging budget.

As always, I value your thoughts and input. I will be available should you wish to contact me about this issue or others of concern.

Sincerely,

Speaker Gordon Fox

This is triply sad.

By not allowing a vote, Rhode Island voters, just as in Maryland, will not know which of their legislators support marriage and equality and which do not.

Furthermore, Speaker Fox is being less than truthful when he argues that DOMA means that a civil unions bill will be equivalent to a marriage equality bill.

Let's not even consider the reasoning put forth in Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the Proposition 8 trial) destroying the notion that a civil union is constitutionally equivalent to a marriage. The truth is that should DOMA be repealed, same-sex couples who are married will be entitled to those federal benefits he speaks of, while those who are entered into civil unions will not (at least until Congress says they are). Fox is obviously making the best he can of a shit sandwich. Still, he could at least be honest with his colleagues and his constituents.

Finally, while the LGBT community has been out celebrating a satisfying yet ephemeral victory in getting King & Spaulding to drop the DOMA case (the defense, by a top-ranking lawyer, will go on), Maggie Gallagher, NOM and the Religious Right have just notched up another real victory on their trophy belt.

Katie Miller's Statement On Being Rejected To West Point

Cadet Katie Miller, who resigned last year in protest over the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has reapplied to West Point Academy and been rejected. From the Huffington Post:

Officials at the U.S. Military Academy said they had no choice but to reject Katherine Miller's application, because the repeal of the policy barring gays from serving openly in the military is not in effect yet. The repeal did not occur immediately after President Barack Obama signed the legislation in December as training and certification are required before the ban is lifted.

Miller's statement via Outserve:

Although I am deeply saddened that I will not be readmitted to West Point, I understand and respect the decision. The Academy and the military are required to abide by a strict DADT repeal implementation timeline, and readmission would violate that timeline. My intent has never been to receive "special treatment" but rather to serve alongside my comrades as an equal.    I intend to graduate from Yale University and join the military through Officer Candidate School. I harbor no resentment toward the military and I look forward to the day they deem it appropriate for me to put the uniform back on.

Another reason to step on the gas for certifying repeal, OMG (Obama, Gates, Mullen), you're missing out on good recruits.

And what is this I hear about ROTC programs returning to campuses if the military is still discriminating in the recruitment? Wasn't discriminatory practices the heart of the conflict?

Stupid Homophobes! (A poll!)

... and their stupid tactics to use gays as political punching bags.

A few stories of stupid people acting stupidly in their zeal to demagogue gays have popped up on my radar. I thought we could have a competition for the stupidest manifestation of homo-bigotry. What say we vote?

Candidates after the fold.

#1: Make Obama Enforce Defend DOMA Bill!
First up we have Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, an anti-gay zealot from MO-4, who serves her homo-hate up with a healthy side-helping of Obama bashing. She has introduced a concurrent resolution condemning the Justice Department's DOMA decision and demanding that it defend DOMA. From her statement:

“President Obama’s decision to order his Justice Department to stop defending DOMA is not a surprise but it is disappointing,” Hartzler said. “Once we start going down the road of selectively enforcing our laws we are headed for chaos. President Obama took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States and he is breaking his word to the American people.”

Three clear points of stupidity that Rep. Hartzler could have cleared up with a simple Google search. One, the President is still "enforcing" the law, he's just declining to defend it. Two, we've already been down the road of Presidents declining to defend laws. It's rare, but it has happened, and the republic survived. Three, the legislative branch doesn't get to demand the DOJ do anything, so good luck with that demand. It's called Separation of Powers, they might have covered that in your American Government class.

#2: Gays Can't Decide On Gay Rights! That's Madness!
Next up we have the notorious homophobe Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 sponsors and author of the Prop 8 ballot initiative and failed candidate for the CA Assembly. Prop 8 Trial Judge Vaughn Walker recently shattered the door on his glass closet discussing his 10-year relationship with a man. That makes his verdict invalid says the Prop 8 support crowd. Monday, they filed a motion to vacate his verdict, saying:

Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced), it is clear that his “impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned” from the outset. He therefore had, at a minimum, a waivable conflict and was obligated either to recuse himself or to provide “full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification,” so that the parties could consider and decide, before the case proceeded further, whether to request his recusal. His failure to do either was a clear violation of Section 455(a), whose “goal ... is to avoid even the appearance of partiality.”

So much stupidity here. It's lousy with stupidity. I like that they added this puts Walker in the same position as the plaintiffs.

The same plaintiffs the Prop 8 supporters argued were in no way harmed by Prop 8. OK, so if that's true, how could Walker be biased? There's no benefit to him either way, if you presented an authentic case in court.

#3: DADT Isn't Done! It's Time To Double Down!
Now, we have a oldie but a goodie. Former Minnesota Governor and Republican Candidate for the Presidency Tim Pawlenty has been running around the country promising to re-instate the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy, he says:

"I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and I would support reinstating it as well."

This is a claim he first made the second week of January, but has repeated several occasions. Should someone tell him maybe he might not want to be so public about that position? Considering nearly 80% of the country has for a long time supported repealing the policy, he might consider rethinking making that a plank of his Presidential campaign platform. Even previously reluctant Service Chiefs say all is going just swimmingly on the implementation process, it just doesn't look like a 2012 winner for the Governor. A lot more of the country is standing with Lt Dan Choi than Pawlenty on this issue.

Now, I posted this over at Daily Kos and it got a rather warm reception and a lot of suggestions for others potential candidates. This got me thinking, maybe we could make this a regular feature? We can't always depend on them to be mind-numbingly stupid (just usually, but sometimes they are downright crafty and machivellian), but we can count on them to be relentless. Maybe a monthly vote, "The Pam's House Blend Popular Choice Award for High Achievements in Homo-bigotry?"

I personally think Dan Savage is right, there are no longer two-sides to this debate. Merciless mocking can help transition the public's view.

Anti-gay hate group mad at Obama over no 'Easter Proclamation'

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The American Family Association - named an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center - has come out with a new video attacking President Obama over what they call a disrespect of Easter, and by proxy, Christians:
 

In a statement, the AFA said the following:

This is consistent with other egregious examples of disregard for our Christian heritage on the president's part, such as omitting "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence, which he has done on at least three occasions.

The president has shown far more interest in promoting Islam than his own self-proclaimed Christian faith, the faith of our Founding Fathers.

The president has been devoted to issuing statements marking all major Muslim holidays, which are of no historical significance to the United States whatsoever. He has released statements in honor of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha, holidays which most Americans cannot pronounce and certainly do not celebrate.

So apparently when they are not bashing lgbts, the AFA is practicing a bit of Islamophobia, i.e. making sure to exploit the ignorance of some Americans who see Obama as a Muslim (which translates to them as a threatening outsider determined to destroy the United States from within).

It's a cheap piece of junk from what is supposed to be a Christian organization. Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly point out:

The first is that the Obama White House didn't exactly ignore Easter. The First Family, for example, attended services yesterday. There's not only a big Easter Egg Roll for families at the White House today, but President Obama also hosted an Easter prayer breakfast last week, during which he told attendees the following:

"I wanted to host this breakfast for a simple reason -- because as busy as we are, as many tasks as pile up, during this season, we are reminded that there's something about the resurrection -- something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective.

"We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work... But then comes Holy Week. The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross. And we're reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection.

"In the words of the book Isaiah: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Benen points out that Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha didn't get that type of treatment.

He also said the following:

The other point to keep in mind is that George W. Bush was in office for eight years. How many Easter proclamations did he issue? Zero.
 . . . Reagan and H.W. Bush didn't issue official Easter proclamations

Perhaps that the Biblical verses -  Judge not, that ye be not judged. . . Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye is a very appropriate response to the AFA here.

In other words, AFA, you forget about your phony outrage at "Obama's Easter controversy," and the rest of us may forget your:

constant homophobia - especially inaccurately linking lgbts to pedophiles (a classic case of bearing false witness),   employing the rabid Bryan Fischer who has- when he's not claiming that gays made up the Nazi Party in German:

made an ugly racial slur about President Obama, viciously attacked a Medal of Honor recipient, and wrote a ridiculous piece about the supposed lack of morals of Native Americans

and continuing to sell the fraudulent video "It's Not Gay," featuring the testimony of supposed "ex-gay" Michael Johnston (even though Johnston, an HIV-positive man, was discovered in 2003 to be having unprotected sex with various men). The AFA, by the way, is still selling the tape (seen here with Johnston's face is on the cover in this link).
Seems to me that before the AFA can declare themselves as defenders of all that is Christians, the organization needs lessons in the basic ideas of truth and integrity.

Those are, after all, two tenets of the Christian religion.

Hat tip to People for the American Way's Right-Wing Watch

An Open Letter to Bryan Fischer

Dear Mr. Fischer,

It has come to my attention that you have read my recent post, Love Amongst the War Wounds and cited it in your online swamp of hate as "proof" that gay people can change. I would like a chance to refute what you have said.

First, I'm not gay. I'm openly bisexual. This means that:

I have the physical and emotional capacity to be in romantic or sexual relationships with both men and women. There is nothing confusing about this. It simply is. I’ve known since age 14 that I'm attracted to both men and women. I’ve had girlfriends and boyfriends. I have been married to a man, and was partnered with another woman for three years.

To quote Lady Gaga, I was, in fact, "born this way."

Second, you take a lot of things out of context to support your position of hate, which, I understand, is fairly common for a hate group to do. If you had any intellectual honesty in you, you would have looked at my linked post from December concerning being bisexual. In it, I state the following:

So what happens if the Right Guy comes along? I will be surprised as hell, probably unprepared. After a battle with my mind, my heart will win. We don’t just choose whom to love, after all. The heart wants what it wants, and no amount of attempts to segment and label will change that.

You ignore the reality in which bisexual people such as myself live, and instead insist upon erasing our existence. A 2002 analysis (opens as .pdf) conducted by the National Center for Family Growth found that 3.4% of women ages 18-44 surveyed identified as bisexual, being attracted to both men and women.

Third, you referred to me as an "ex-gay". 

We’ve often made the point that race is immutable but sexual orientation is not. We don’t know any ex-blacks, but we do know ex-gays. Now everybody who reads “Pam’s House Blend” knows one too.

I'm not an ex-gay, Bryan. I'm a bisexual woman who at this time happens to be madly in love with a wonderful man. I'm insulted and disgusted that you would take something as amazing as love, especially between two people who have been through as much hell as Jester and I have, and twist it to suit your agenda of hate.

If you want to use our story for any purpose, you might consider using it to advocate for more research and development into prosthetics for those with amputation injuries. You could call your followers to donate to the Wounded Warrior Project, which helps injured vets and their families. You could promote projects like Homes For Our Troops, which builds specially adapted homes for severely injured vets at no cost to the veteran.

I hope that one day you will see that the Light of the Divine resides in all of us, whether gay, intersex, straight, transgendered, bisexual, cisgendered, or genderqueer. Until that day, I will continue to work against your agenda of hate, in the streets, on the blogs, with my legislators, with my family and friends, and in a few years, in courtrooms as an attorney fighting for the equal rights of all Americans.

Goddess bless you.

Regards,

Keori