Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 76

Clears House committee: Amendment on the Persecution of Sexual and Religious Minorities

Kudos to Barney Frank...this is change is long-overdue:

Congressman Barney Frank, Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, today introduced an amendment in the Committee which would have the effect of pressuring countries which persecute people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or religious belief. Although most votes in the committee have broken along party lines, Congressman Frank's amendment passed the Committee with near-unanimous support. The text of the amendment follows:

The Committee urges Treasury to advocate that governments receiving assistance from the multilateral development institutions do not engage in gross violations of human rights, for example, the denial of freedom of religion, including the right to choose one's own religion, and physical persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"What we have seen in recent years is a pattern of gross violation of human rights in some countries - extreme physical persecution and even execution," said Congressman Frank. "In Uganda for example, which was the major beneficiary of our Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative, there has been physical persecution of people who are sexual minorities."

"The United States has a fairly influential voice in the development area. And we should not be supportive of providing multilateral bank development funds going to the governments of countries which engage in the physical persecution of people because of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation or gender identity."

Frank's amendment will now be included in the language of House Financial Services Committee bill which outlines budget priorities for issues under its jurisdiction. Because of the overwhelming support for Frank's language in today's deliberations, it is hoped that it will also garner support in the Budget Committee and in the House as a whole.

UPDATE: Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant's last 50 workers evacuated, then returned

UPDATE (11:30PM ET): MSNBC reported the workersleft for 45 minutes during a spike in radiation and that they've returned. The main problem here is that the company running the plant, Tokyo Electric Power, hasn't shown adequate transparency - we don't know if the same 45 came back or others who haven't reached max exposure levels, or how many people are left to cycle out during this crisis. And look at this, via CNN, emphasis mine:

Meanwhile, The Japan Times reports that radiation reached around 20 times normal levels in the capital Tuesday morning, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government said, while offering the assurance this reading posed no immediate risk to human health and that the public should remain calm.

"I received a report this morning that there was an important change of data," Gov. Shintaro Ishihara said at a news conference. "I heard that it will not immediately cause health problems."

This is beyond bad. It was horrendous enough that we learned that it had reached the point that 50 workers were sacrificing their health re: radiation exposure at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in a desperate bid to cool the rods with sea water; now it's just been disclosed that they have been told to abandon the plant. The question up in the air is whether we are now at the point where the Japanese government has officially said the situation has been left to devolve into a complete meltdown. There is just no way to know right now.

Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, is holding a news conference that is being broadcast live on Japanese television. Mr. Edano said radiation readings started rising rapidly Wednesday morning outside the front gate of the Fukushima Daiichi plant. "All the workers there have suspended their operations. We have urged them to evacuate, and they have," he said, according to a translation by NHK television.

The news is moment by moment because, as I said above, we aren't sure just how bad the situation is because earlier the information coming from the Japanese government was unclear, and the information from the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power, was basically withholding information about the gravity of the situation:

The workers are being asked to make escalating - and perhaps existential - sacrifices that so far are being only implicitly acknowledged: Japan's Health Ministry said Tuesday it was raising the legal limit on the amount of radiation to which each worker could be exposed, to 250 millisieverts from 100 millisieverts, five times the maximum exposure permitted for American nuclear plant workers.

The change means that workers can now remain on site longer, the ministry said. "It would be unthinkable to raise it further than that, considering the health of the workers," the health minister, Yoko Komiyama, said at a news conference.

Tokyo Electric Power, the plant's operator, has said almost nothing at all about the workers, including how long a worker is expected to endure exposure.

The few details Tokyo Electric has made available paint a dire picture. Five workers have died since the quake and 22 more have been injured for various reasons, while two are missing. One worker was hospitalized after suddenly grasping his chest and finding himself unable to stand, and another needed treatment after receiving a blast of radiation near a damaged reactor. Eleven workers were injured in a hydrogen explosion at reactor No. 3.

Well obviously, the above earlier news is now moot if the workers are being evacuated. This is all horrible news. Below the fold is a live stream of video from NHK, Japan's state broadcaster, with simultaneous English translation.















Live TV : Ustream

Op-ed by NC minister blows away the 'one-man, one-woman marriage' bible beaters

Rev. Douglas S. Long, minister at Umstead Park United Church of Christ, wrote an op-ed in the Raleigh News & Observer that is worth the click because it takes the anti-gay bible-beaters who are pushing for a marriage amendment here in North Carolina on the turf where it needs to be fought - biblical, traditional marriage .

Yes, I know that there is a separation of church and state, but for many so-called people of faith, they refuse to understand the concept...even elected officials charged with passing civil laws. The fact is that I heard and saw this myself during one of Equality NC's Day of Action at the General Assembly.

At this year's Day of Action, I spoke with an ally, an opponent of a state amendment to our constitution, State Rep. Larry Bell (D-21st), who represents in a more rural district. I asked him whether the argument that an amendment would be bad for business in NC, he shook his head sadly and said "these people pushing the amendment are too far gone over this...it won't make a difference."

I was kind of surprised, then offered, "would it make a difference if we brought pastors, ministers, rabbis, etc., who want to marry same-sex couples to testify?" After all this would mean passing an amendment would, in fact, be discriminatory based on religion. You can't have it both ways. Rep. Bell nodded in agreement.

And I thank you, Rev. Long for taking on this argument...

The truth of the matter is that the Bible is not a good source supporting monogamous and mutual marriage that our society and culture has evolved to embrace.

More systematically than considering a favorite passage here and there, Vaughn Roste, the son of two Canadian Lutheran pastors with a seminary degree of his own, has undertaken a comprehensive study of passages in the Bible, researching more than 800 Biblical references that deal with marriage. He distilled from that study what he refers to as "The 12 Biblical Principles of Marriage." In summary, in the Bible:

Marriage consists of one man and one or more women.Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have.The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the biblical mindset.If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stonedFor those who claim these are all Old Testament laws and that the New Testament supersedes them, consider in the New Testament that:

Women are allowed to marry the man of their father's choosing ... because women are the property of their father until married and their husband afterwards. Interfaith marriages are prohibited. If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow Divorce is forbidden, and finally ... It's better, according to St. Paul, to not get married at all.The point is this, anyone can pick and choose a verse or phrase from the Bible which, taken alone and literally, will appear to support their argument. While people of the Judaic-Christian tradition may disagree on the propriety of same-gender marriage, can we at least agree to not misuse the Bible in the process?

And, of course we found out during Perry v Schwarzeneggar that the "experts" in favor of Prop 8 wilted when they had to produce evidence against same-sex marriage not rooted in the Bible, but in science.

The key is to rip away the pitiful use of a holy book to justify discrimination in civil law. What has been the sticking point on our side has been the reluctance to "go there." We need to help our religious allies come forth and show that there is not one religious viewpoint on the matter, and to force the bigots to find a rational, reality-based argument against letting gay and lesbian couples marry that isn't ultimately rooted in bigotry.

Clown car theatre: Bachmann says she'll produce her birth certificate during Presidential Debate

Michele Bachmann is testing the waters for a potential ride in the 2012 GOP Clown Car, and she's going to have her party's priorities straight -- by making the birther conspiracy the primary focus of the Presidential debate. I'd say that this qualifies as a "I sh*t you not moment" but this lunacy is par for the course for the congresswoman from Minnesota (Huff Post):

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently signaled the first thing she would do in the premiere presidential debate of the next election cycle should she make a run for the White House.

Speaking to conservative radio host Jeff Katz in an interview last week, she said, "I think the first thing I would do in the first debate is offer my birth certificate so we can get that off the table."

Some of the reaction on my Facebook page to Bachmann's political savvy (among other things):

HRC poll shows voters oppose GOP Defense of DOMA

The Human Rights Campaign, in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, has released a poll that showes the House Republicans are -- surprise -- out of step with the American public. From the press release via email:

Overall, voters say they oppose the Defense of Marriage Act - 51 percent oppose the law and 34 percent favor it.  Independent voters, who were instrumental in the Republican House takeover, oppose this law by a 52 percent to 34 percent margin.  Additionally when read statements for and against defending the law in court, 54 percent of voters oppose the House Republicans' intervention, while only 32 percent support it.  Poll results are available at www.hrc.org/DOMApoll2011.

DOMA prohibits the federal government from granting married same-sex couples things like Social Security survivor benefits, health insurance for federal employees' spouses, joint tax filing, family and medical leave and other critical protections.  When asked if they favor or oppose some of these benefits for gay and lesbian couples who have been legally married, voters responded: on Social Security survivor benefits, 60 favor, 34 oppose; on federal employee health benefits for spouses, 58 percent favor, 36 percent oppose; on protecting spouses from losing their homes in cases of severe medical emergencies or death, 64 percent favor, 28 percent oppose; and on avoiding tax penalties by filing joint tax returns as a married couple, 55 percent favor, 38 percent oppose.

"The debate over DOMA isn't about whether you favor marriage equality, it's about whether the government can pick and choose which marriages they like, and which they don't," said HRC President Joe Solmonese.  "With five states and DC granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it's time the federal government stop playing favorites and instead create an equal playing field for all families."

On Wednesday, leaders in the House and Senate will introduce the "Respect for Marriage Act" - a bill to repeal DOMA and open up the benefits, protections and obligations of marriage under federal law to same-sex couples legally married in states that have ended their exclusion from marriage.

Last Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner announced that the House would intervene to defend DOMA in court, following a Justice Department announcement that the administration believes the law to be unconstitutional.  At least nine cases are challenging DOMA spanning three appellate courts and four district courts in six states.  The Speaker's announcement did not make clear if they will intervene in all of the cases, who will represent the House, how much the defense will cost, what their arguments for the law will be or other critical issues.  More background on DOMA and the unanswered questions is at www.hrc.org/DOMApoll2011.

"When it comes to defending DOMA, House Republicans are wrong on the policy and wrong on the politics," said Solmonese.  "It's mind boggling that Republican leaders would so misread the tea leaves in their urgent effort to score some cheap and temporary political points."

...The telephone survey, including cell phones, was conducted 3/8/11 through 3/10/11 among 800 registered voters.  It has a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percent.  The results of the poll, including the questionnaire, a memo on the findings and charts, are available at: www.hrc.org/DOMApoll2011.

Florida: mailer attacks female candidate for not engaging in the sanctity of marriage

That's not a joke. Marriage, as well all know, exists as a civil and religious institution, and that the right wing at every turn wants voters to conflate the two. And in a Tampa, FL race, it's not even -- ahem -- about TEH GAY (right). A woman, Rose Ferlita, has been targeted by the Tea Partyish-sounding 527 group "Less Government Now" with a mailer that is a throwback to the days when women were generally seen as morally, intellectually and otherwise unfit to hold office because they possess an unmarried vajayjay. Look at this (via Think Progress).

"Unmarried. Unsure. Unelectable."

The mailer suggests that because Ferlita is not married, she is incapable of valuing family or holding public office. "Rose Ferlita has put her political ambition first and foremost, while her opponent is a dedicated family man with two children - Ferlita is an unmarried woman with a suspect commitment to family values," it reads. Moreover, as Florida blog Saint Petersblog notes, "unmarried" is a "codeword" - "if you read between the lines is a subtle way of casting doubt on Ferlita's sexual orientation." Other mailers sent by Less Government Now going after men have focused on the candidates' record or policy positions, not their personal lives, marital status, or sexual orientation.

So it looks like the old traditional misogyny is the province of "Less Government Now" -- that's A-OK gay-baiting territory.

Japan's tragedy: from bad to worse

UPDATE: If AC's leaving his current location in Japan, it's f*cked:

"Due to safety concerns we are leaving this area and therefore not live for the second hour."

I've been offline or just on Twitter or Facebook today because of a major fibromyalgia flare. My head is so foggy (no concentration, bad short term memory) and the pain is so horrid that working or writing anything longer than a couple of sentences was impossible. Anyway, I couldn't ignore the horror still unfolding in Japan.

Witness this article progression from yesterday (NYT):

Several Plant Workers Are Ill, but Radiation Risk in Japan Is Seen as Low for NowSecond Explosion at Reactor as Technicians Try to Contain DamageDanger Posed by Radioactivity in Japan Hard to AssessTo this, just moments ago: Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Workers Leave Plant:

Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared immiment, according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments.

Japanese Prime Minsiter Naoto Kan made a televised address to the nation at 11 a.m. Tokyo time to discuss the latest developments in the crisis.

The sharp deterioration came after government officials said the containment structure of the No. 2 reactor, the most seriously damaged of three reactors at the Daichi plant, had suffered damage during an explosion shortly after 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

...If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material - by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago.

You might recall that former Vice President Dick Cheney and failed presidential candidate John McCain have been all fired up about adding new nuclear facilities here in the States. I wonder if they would like any plants in their back yards?  

Terrible Harm from those Wacky Gay "Cures"

cross-posted from A-Musing.

Recently Lisa Ling misinformed the public through an episode of her new program on the  Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN.) In regards to gay reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries, like many journalists before her, Lisa Ling asked the wrong question-- Can You Pray Away the Gay? Instead she should have asked the more essential questions:

Why do people seek to change or repress their sexual orientation?And at what cost? What potential harm comes to those who attempt to change or repress their sexual orientation?Exodus International and Alan Chambers admit that genuine change from gay to straight does not happen. People simply change some of their behaviors and change their identities. They still have desires for people of the same-sex, and for most who claim they are ex-gay or former homosexuals, they cannot successfully partner with someone of the opposite sex. Also, according to Exodus, the VAST MAJORITY of people who enroll in these programs ultimately fail and come out gay. What happens to those people? Does Exodus know? Do they care?

Over at Beyond Ex-Gay, the on-line resource for ex-gay survivors, we address the two questions I mention above.  In the article, Why I Went Ex-Gay, I outline the many factors that influenced me in my own failed 17 year quest to de-gay myself. While seeking a "cure," I believed I was a Christian struggling with homosexuality. I have since unearthed plenty of non-religious reasons for why pursued a course that ultimately brought great harm to my life. In this video I talk about some of those reasons.

As to the harms that have come to those who have attempted to de-gay myself, they are many and at times devastating. In the article, Ex-Gay Harm--Let Me Count the Ways, I outline nine different areas of harm I have identified after speaking with over 1,000 ex-gay survivors.

PsychologicalEmotionalSpiritualRelationalFinancialVocationalDevelopmentalPhysicalSexual

In the article I provide descriptions  of each, and based on the list ex-gay survivors provide specific examples from their own lives.

The other day I presented a workshop called Homo No Mo?!? Orientation, Gender & the Ex-Gay Movement. In preparation I asked  my friends at Facebook,

I received over 20 responses within an hour. Below I list some of these:

From your experience and knowledge, what are some of the harms that come from trying to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender identity/expression?

Shelley As a psychologist and gender therapist, I have seen the damage first hand. Trauma is the most significant. Clients often experience chronic PTSD after receiving “treatment.” Many have difficulty with self-acceptance. Relationships suffer. The guilt is difficult to resolve.

Joseph My first thoughts are the very real and big harms that come when people who are suppressing such things choose to marry, and then, perhaps, have children…..those marriages and parenting relationships are under an incredible incredible amo…
Michael (a former ex-gay leader) Sense of failure, guilt, loss of faith, wasted time…The list goes on and on.

Aaron Suppression ultimately leads to lies. You are forced to lie to yourself or those around in order to feel safe. It’s horrible to feel like you are living a lie. If one can’t live authentically they may start to question. Their entire existence which can/has led to depression and sometimes suicide. Personally, I felt trapped and alone. I even quit going to church because I knew I was living a lie by suppressing the real me.

Mark Compartmentalization leads to lying as a way of life. Not exactly a prescription for good mental health and goes against God’s injunction to not bear false witness.

James I think, in my own experience, it has actually had a detrimental effect on my brain, even though I probably can’t prove it. Compartmentalization of thoughts and memories has become so ingrained that most of my own past feels like it happened to somebody else. Also, it took me a long time to be able to build personal relationships.

Eric Nightmares about burning in Hell for all eternity for looking the wrong way should definitely be at the top of the list.
Sally …from my experience one harm that came from it was in trying to suppress who I was I was unable to be all I was meant to be within the church aswell as outside. I hated myself for who I was, it is only since I have accepted who I am and have begun to love myself that I have been able to be released into serving God with the gifts and calling he gave me.

David We only have one life to live. It should be an authentic and genuine experience. If it’s a false life…what would be the point? Gosh this goes for all sorts of True Self suppression. So sad when people are not who they truly are.
——————————————————————————————–
Lisa Ling attempted to present a human interest story. Sure she presented some positive portrayals of gay folks, even gay Christian folks, but ultimately she ultimately she failed in her public responsibility as a journalist to highlight the risks to health and well-being the religious-based ex-gay programs pose.

In my blog post Outrageous Displays of Ex-Gay Misinformation I write about a misguided radio program that also got the ex-gay story wrong. In the post, I point out the mistakes journalists make when they try to present “both sides of the story.” It’s not that simple and instead of informing  they end up misinforming the public.

Wayne Besen over at Truth Wins Out provides detailed analysis of the Lisa Ling piece. It is well worth watching. Besen reveals that TV program is naive and inaccurate in its presentation of Exodus. He also gives helpful information to journalists who might want to cover Exodus in the future.

Bottom line, Lisa Ling gave loads of airtime to providers and promoters of gay cures and no time at all to the victims of these programs.
 

Montgomery County Ethics Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Dana Beyer

"This proceeding should never have happened," Dr. Beyer said. "My ethics and personal values were questioned. My computer was seized and searched. My colleagues and my employer, Councilmember Trachtenberg, had their own behavior called into question."

"After having failed to defeat anti-discrimination protections for transgender citizens in the County Council, and then failing to get their referendum on the ballot, a small group of narrow-minded, politically motivated individuals tried to obstruct justice a third time by going after me personally. Their ultimate accomplishment was to expose serious flaws with the ethics process, and to raise some important questions about county oversight of ethics enforcement."

~From Dana Beyer's press release, entitled "Ethics Complaint Against Former Council Aide Dismissed;  "Opponents of Montgomery County's Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Law Misused Ethics Process to Advance a Harsh, Extremist Agenda," says Dr. Dana Beyer

The Maryland Citizens For Responsible Government filed a ethics complaint against Dana Beyer, at the time the complaint was filed worked as an aide for former Montgomery County, Maryland Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg was a lead proponent of an antidiscrimination bill to protect Montgomery County citizens on the basis of gender identity.

The report on the complaint was released on March 8th, and the complaint was dismissed. To quote from the report on the nature of the ethics complaint:

On October 7, 2008, the Commission received a sworn complaint (with attached affidavits) from Dr. Ruth Jacobs, President of Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government (MCRG), alleging the following facts: On November 13, 2007, the County Council enacted Bill 23-07. That bill prohibited discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations cable television service, and taxicab service on the basis of "gender identity." Then-Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg was a lead proponent of the bill. At the time, Dr. Beyer, herself transgendered, worked as an aide for Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg.

Opponents of the bill formed MCRG in order to petition the Bill to referendum. The petition process required MCRG to gather signatures from at least 5% of County registered voters-half those signature were due within 75 days of the bill's enactment (February 4, 2008) and the remaining half was due within 90 days of the Bill's enactment (February 19, 2008). Montgomery County Charter ? 115. Absent a successful petition drive, the Bill would become effective on February 20, 2008.2

MCRG received permission from Giant Food to solicit signatures for the petition outside some of their stores. The Complaint alleged that Dr. Beyer and other Bill proponents interfered with MCRG's signature-gathering activities at various Giant Food stores by, among other things, yelling and screaming at MCRG volunteers and potential petition signers that they were "bigots;" that by signing the petition they were "for discrimination;" and that the names of those who signed the petition would be "all over the internet." In one particular incident, at the Arliss/Piney Branch Giant on February 17, 2008, Dr. Beyer allegedly told the Giant manager that she worked for Councilmember Trachtenberg and that the manager would "have problems with the County Council" if he allowed MCRG to stay and gather signatures. The Complaint also alleged that Dr. Beyer intimidated signature gatherers and/or MCRG volunteers by purposefully bumping into them and physically getting between MCRG volunteers and potential petition signers.

The Complaint alleged further that Dr. Beyer used the prestige of her office for personal gain in violation of ? 19A-14(a) because, as a transgendered woman, she stood to personally gain from Bill 23-10. MCRG maintained that Dr. Beyer also violated ? 19A-14(c) when she used her County position and facilities (e.g., her office computer) in her campaign to thwart MCRG's petition drive and uphold Bill 23-10. Finally, the Complaint alleged that Dr. Beyer's conduct at the Giant Food stores violated ? 19A-14(e)'s proscription against intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person's freedom to engage in political activity.

The report spells out some horrid behavior by the people who testified against her, such as Verlon Mason. He was an assistant manager at the Arliss/Piney Branch Giant Food store where the alleged unethical behavior took place, and he referred to Dana Beyer as a "shim." For those who don't know, "shim" is a pejorative on the same order as "she-male," which would be equivalent in offence to the anti-African-American n-word pejorative, the anti-female c-word pejorative, or the antigay f-word pejorative.

The complaint was resolved in Dan Beyer's favor -- the behavior that Dr. Ruth Jacobs, President of Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government alleged was...Well, from the repot's conclusion:

[I]t was not proved that Dr. Beyer violated ? 19A-14(e) by intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person's freedom to engage in political activity as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office.

Dana Beyer's press release on the resolution of this ethics complaint is below the fold.

Ethics Complaint Against Former Council Aide Dismissed

"Opponents of Montgomery County's Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Law Misused Ethics Process to Advance a Harsh, Extremist Agenda," says Dr. Dana Beyer

The Montgomery County Ethics Commission, in an Order dated March 8, 2011, dismissed a complaint that had been filed against Dr. Dana Beyer, a former policy aide to former Montgomery County Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large). While hailing the Ethics Commission's Order, Dr. Beyer said the inquiry exposed serious problems with the County's ethics process and the management of County Council operations.

Councilmember Trachtenberg, with the assistance of Dr. Beyer, had sponsored a groundbreaking County law, passed unanimously by the County Council in late 2007, prohibiting discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity.

Opponents of the legislation, led by an ultraconservative group calling itself "Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government"(MCRG) then sought to gather enough signatures on a petition to put the measure before the voters in the November 2008 general election. As a leader in several organizations committed to defending the bill, Dr. Beyer helped organize efforts to educate voters and to challenge the petition legally, and visited sites where signatures were being gathered to speak with voters about the issue. Ultimately the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the proponents had not gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

The ethics complaint, filed by MCRG, the group opposed to the anti-discrimination law, alleged that Dr. Beyer interfered with MCRG's signature-gathering at one Giant Food store on one occasion, with verbal intimidation, threats and using the prestige of her office for personal gain, alleging that because Dr. Beyer is herself a transgender woman, she stood to personally gain from the Bill.

In dismissing the Complaint, the Commission found there was no credible evidence of any ethics violation by Dr. Beyer. The Commission ruled that the key affidavit offered by MCRG to support its complaint showed that the witness in question evidenced "a bias against transgendered individuals" and that crucial testimony of another witness "displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals, which, in the Commission's judgment, makes his testimony not credible."

"This proceeding should never have happened," Dr. Beyer said. "My ethics and personal values were questioned. My computer was seized and searched. My colleagues and my employer, Councilmember Trachtenberg, had their own behavior called into question."

"After having failed to defeat anti-discrimination protections for transgender citizens in the County Council, and then failing to get their referendum on the ballot, a small group of narrow-minded, politically motivated individuals tried to obstruct justice a third time by going after me personally. Their ultimate accomplishment was to expose serious flaws with the ethics process, and to raise some important questions about county oversight of ethics enforcement."

Former Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg questioned whether Dr. Beyer had been singled out as a political target because she is a transgender woman.

"I always had the greatest confidence in Dr. Beyer," Ms. Trachtenberg said, "and she served the County with distinction and the highest degree of professionalism. One has to wonder why the Ethics Commission allowed itself to be used as a political tool by those who opposed the initiatives Dr. Beyer and I championed to ensure equal justice for all residents of Montgomery County."

Dana Beyer told me today that she'll be soon meeting with her attorney to discuss options -- including a possible lawsuit.

.

From one black man to the black community - stop the homophobic madness!

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

During last week’s legislative session in Maryland when lawmakers were pondering the idea of gay marriage, a few black lawmakers took the time to not only criticize gay marriage but also the notion of lgbt equality in general.

We’ve all heard the hurtful sayings before - “you can’t compare gay rights to black civil rights because you can hide being gay,” “gays and lesbians were never oppressed in the same manner in which blacks were oppressed,” etc., etc.

It would be an awful generalization to say that all in the African-American community have these beliefs. In Maryland many African-Americans, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo, publicly supported marriage equality.

However, statements voiced by some Maryland lawmakers unfortunately stand out and not in a good way. In answer to these comments, I could go on about the many lives either crippled and lost at the hands of gay bashers like that of Matthew Shepard, or the wholesale genocide of lgbts by the Nazis in German, or the suicides of lgbt youth such as Tyler Clementi, or the present day usage of junk science by religious right groups to demonize the lgbt community.

But why bother. I’ve reached the point where I hate having to do it.

It’s sad how no one ever talks about how this tug of war between the African-American and lgbt community over equality can negatively affect us lgbts of color. For me personally, it’s an awful psychological rending, a forced dividing of myself into two halves which have no business separating in the first place.

And as a gay man, I especially hate it. I hate the idea of us lgbts having to put the history of our oppression on some sort of display. I hate the notion that lgbts are put on a witness stand where we have to list how many times we have been beaten, disrespected, or denied our basic humanity in order to somehow prove our “worthiness.”

It always leaves me wondering are the scars of the lgbt community deep enough? Is our humiliation painful enough? Have we shed enough blood to suit those who would judge on us on those things?

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for understanding the aesthetic differences between the African-American struggle and lgbt struggle for equality. But there comes a time when we must recognize the folly of this constant struggle over whether the two are similar.

And that time is now.

It distresses me to no end that on the subject of lgbt equality, some African-Americans are taking on the guise of those who oppress them.

Those who oppressed (and continue to oppress) African-Americans have the belief that somehow blacks are inferior and will never measure up. Therefore they figure that black people are not deserving of certain basic rights. What’s more awful is how they use the Bible to justify their discrimination.

Now, it seems that some African-Americans have told members of the lgbt community that their suffering is inferior and will never measure up. And therefore, the lgbt community are not deserving of certain basic rights. And guess what? They too use the Bible to justify their discrimination .

It’s a nasty, stupid game. And those who choose to play it should know better.

Being oppressed is not a status symbol. Being oppressed is not a mark of achievement. It should never be used as a pedestal to somehow judge whether or not a group of people are “worthy” of being treated like basic human beings.Not that it will make a difference in the minds of the people who choose to play this game, but some of those same lgbt scars belong to African Americans. Some of that lgbt pain and humiliation comes from African-American hearts. And some of that lgbt blood shed at the hands of homophobic monsters come from African-American bodies.

And that is the saddest thing about the entire mess. When some African-American leaders rag against lgbt equality, they fool themselves into thinking that they are speaking against hedonistic upper class white gay men sipping fancy cocktails in a ritzy bars.

But that notion is so far from the truth.

African-American leaders who speak against lgbt equality are stabbing their own people in the back - the young black lesbian kicked out of her home for “acting like a man,” the effeminate black gay boy constantly picked on by bullies, the older African-Americans lgbts left adrift and rendered invisible by their own black community, and all of the other assorted black lgbt brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, nieces, and close friends not given the courtesy of simple public acknowledgement.

And while these self-righteous black leaders may claim that they don’t mean treat their own people in this manner, their pathetic mea culpa don’t mean a drop of water in the bucket to those like myself who have to deal with such things on a constant basis.

Through their barrage of hurtful comments, these black leaders foster a rejection of African-American lgbts like myself, thereby telling us that we are not a genuine part of the black community.

And that hurts.

Whether folks want to admit it or not, the African-American community is linked to the lgbt community, and not just by those who us who belong to both groups. Our oppression is sometimes similar and the folks behind it are sometimes the same entities.

The majority white-led and populated religious right groups who exploit this tug of war between the African-American and lgbt communities are quick to be the so-called protectors of the civil right movement's legacy but render themselves conveniently invisible when issues like socio-economic inequalities in minority health and education pop up.

And that's not by accident.

However, we don’t recognize this because we forget to treat each other with dignity and respect. And because some of us become victims of inaccurate assumptions - be they religious, racial, or otherwise - which deceives us into thinking that the scars we bear due to hate are badges of honor and exclusivity instead of reminders of what we must never become.

Some African-Americans need to be forewarned. Ultimately this battle over lgbt equality will become less about gay rights and more about the soul of the black America.

At the very least, it poses a basic question - have over 400 years of oppression taught black America nothing about dehumanization, being exploited, and having to “prove” worthiness?