Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 83
March 1, 2011
The Next Step Toward Equality: Repealing DOMA
First, New Hampshire and Washington, DC began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples; then a federal court found provisions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) unconstitutional; and now, just last week, President Obama and the Justice Department announced that they would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA in court.
Prior to this announcement, I was working with colleagues and advocates to encourage this move and I applaud the President's decision, but the fact is that DOMA will continue to be enforced until Congress repeals it legislatively. Achieving marriage equality is a top priority of mine and I believe that repeal of DOMA is a crucial step toward that goal.
I hope you'll join me in this fight at repealDOMA.com.
We must repeal this discriminatory law. There is no reason same-sex couples should be denied the same rights that my husband and I and so many other straight Americans enjoy. For me it comes down to the very simple principles that every American should be able to marry the person they love, and that discrimination against LGBT Americans is unconstitutional and wrong.
The law as it currently stands denies federal benefits to thousands of legally married couples -- more than 1,100 federal rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples, including hospital visitation, inheritance and some health care benefits. It discourages states from recognizing these legal marriages and it denies millions more Americans the right to marry the person they love.
This is wrong.
Senator Feinstein has announced she will introduce repeal legislation in the US Senate and Rep. Nadler will do the same in the House. I look forward to supporting their efforts and helping lead the way in this battle. Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, it's crucial that we begin the debate now.
So please join me at repealDOMA.com. And if you've been affected by DOMA, please share your story with us. As with DADT, personalizing this fight will be the key to winning it.
Thanks for your ongoing support in our battle for LGBT equality.
Womb controller Janet Porter schedules fetus to 'testify' in favor of OH bill
A fetus has been scheduled as a legislative witness in Ohio on a unique bill that proposes outlawing abortions after the first heartbeat can be medically detected.
Faith2Action, the anti-abortion group that has targeted Ohio to pilot the measure, called the in-utero witness the youngest to ever come before the House Health Committee at 9 weeks old.
Faith2Action president Janet Folger Porter said the intent is to show lawmakers who will be affected by the bill, which abortion rights groups oppose. Ohio Right to Life has not endorsed the measure.
An aide to committee Chairman Lynn Wachtmann said a pregnant woman will be brought before the committee and an ultrasound image of her uterus will be projected onto a screen. The heartbeat of the fetus will be visible in color.
Marriage Equality Action In New York
More news on gay rights activists that blocked traffic this morning in New York City, at Sixth Avenue and 42nd Street, calling on the New York State government to pass marriage equality in this session.
The Press Release from Queer Rising:
New York, NY - The LGBTQ activist organization Queer Rising's protest against New York's discriminatory marriage laws ends in arrest after eight members refused to move from the intersection at 42nd St. and 6th Avenue. A 75-foot banner reading "NY DEMANDS MARRIAGE EQUALITY NOW!" was unfurled.Unwilling to wait any longer for equal rights and protection from the state of New York, the eight activists refused to let Manhattan go on with business as usual while thousands of LGBTQ families live as second-class citizens. LGBTQ people throughout the state are no longer willing to remain silent until the unjust marriage laws change.
"It's a sad thing that I have to go to such extreme lengths for rights that others were born with," said Frostie Flakes, one of the three arrested drag queens.
The recent Quinnipiac University Poll shows New York State's support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, with 56 percent supporting and 37 percent opposed. Earlier this week, the Obama administration declared it will no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage. New York shamefully lags behind on providing equality for its citizens.
"We do not enjoy inconveniencing drivers on their hectic morning commute," said Jake Goodman, a member of Queer Rising and another arrestee, "but we less enjoy living without the 1,324 protections and rights granted by state-recognized marriage. We only hope others stop the routine of their everyday lives to join us and demand marriage equality now."
Those arrested were: Kevin Beauchamp, blind gay activist; Nora Camp, queer activist; Natasha Dillon, lesbian activist; Frostie Flakes (aka Adam Siciliano), drag queen activist; Jake Goodman, queer activist; Honey LaBronx (aka Ben Strothmann), drag queen activist; Eugene Lovendusky, gay activist; Kitten Withuwip (aka Caldwell) drag queen activist.
Steven Thrasher of The Village Voice posted this pre-action interview with participant Honey LeBronx, of Drag Queen Weddings for Equality.
Our gender-bending friends were there in 1969, at Stonewall, and here still today.
Indeed popular support runs high in the Empire State. Marriage Equality New York has run very successful educational and grassroots outreach programs.
Human Rights Campaign recently reached out and secured Robert F. Kennedy to tape a PSA calling for marriage equality. He joined a chorus of promient New Yorkers to lend their voice including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Whoopie Goldberg, Julianna Moore, Mark Ruffalo and even First Daughter Barbara Bush.
Transcript:
[Kennedy:] Hi, I'm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and I'm a New Yorker and I support marriage equality. I grew up in the state of Virginia at a time when we had laws called Jim Crow laws that prohibited black people from marrying white people and a lot of people said if you change those laws it would be immoral. Well, my father was very proud that he was part of the battle to establish this country with a true constitutional democracy for the first time in its history. This is the last vestige of institutionalized bigotry that's left in this country and we need to get rid of it.[Text on Screen:] New Yorkers Support Full Marriage Equality
[Text on Screen:] Do You?
[Kennedy:] Join us.
News on the marriage equality fight in NY has overall been quiet, but not not discouraging. When Erik Bottcher, LGBT community liaison to New York City Council Speaker, Christine Queen, was plucked for a cabinet position in the Cuomo administration, speculation ran high that this was a good sign. Governor Andrew Cuomo himself recently reiterated his campaign promise to make marriage equality "a priority" of his administration, from February 10, the New York Times:
Mr. Cuomo, who included legalizing same-sex marriage in his campaign platform, said Wednesday that he intended to ask the Legislature to take up the matter in its current session, which ends in June."We'll be working very hard to pass it," the governor, a Democrat, told reporters after delivering an encore of his budget address at Hofstra University on Long Island.
The New York State Senate is narrowly controlled by Republicans. Senate Majority leader Dean Skelos, personally unsupportive, has announced he does intend to allow it to come to a vote. Last session, there was no GOP caucus position on marriage equality, and Republicans were free "free to vote their conscience." Though none voted favorably in the Senate, and the bill was defeated, Republican votes in the Assembly House are not unheard of, in the several times it has come to a vote.
Previous bill's sponsor Democrat Tom Duane will carry the bill through the Senate. Though he announced his intention to introduce it "within weeks" in mid January, he has yet to do so.
The bill failed by eight votes in December 2009. Though Democrats saw a net loss of seats in 2010 elections, it's generally believed the Senate saw a 2 or 3 vote pick-up overall on the issue of marriage equality. But Republican votes will be essential and GOP party resistance remains the highest obstacle. It was said there were several Republicans who were prepared to vote for marriage equality in 2009, but backed out last time when Democratic coalition failed to hold. It is believed there are still GOP Senators that are friendly to the idea, but no names are publicly known.
It is also not unfair to say the Senate of 2011 may be be living in a whole new world of the failed vote of 2009.
There was a fairly significant sense of shock that resonated around the Empire State that "progressive, trend-setting" New York couldn't get done what New Hampshire, Maine, and others have accomplished.
And in the time since the last vote, we've seen both The Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 struck down as unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice do a 180 degree turn on their opinion on marriage discrimination. With marriage equality moving steadily forward in Maryland and Rhode Island, it remains to be see if the wind on the east coast is blowing with enough force to bring this home in 2011. (Let us also not forget the "everything but marriage bills" that brought a measure of LGBT equality in Illinois and Hawaii, recently.)
The State Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats has passed marriage equality several times before.
Update: WCBS has a pretty good video of the action.
NC: Marriage discrimination amendment bigots forge ahead; HRC gives ENC $10K for battle
These may be good old boys in our General Assembly, but they aren't stupid when it comes to political calculation. This year's marriage amendment, SB106, already has 23 sponsors - if it gets to the Senate it will pass if the chamber's 30 Republicans vote thumbs up.The perennial sponsor, Sen James Forrester of Gaston County, is confident it will pass and make a splash at the polls in 2012, in the wake of the DNC holding its shebang in Charlotte. (N&O):
"Democrats may not like that it will bring out conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote for it," Forrester said.There's some good news to report. 1) an Elon poll this week shows NC residents support same-sex partner recognition; and 56% of North Carolinians oppose an amendment; and 2):..."This is about sending a message that gay and lesbian people are second-class citizens," said Ian Palmquist, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality North Carolina. There's no likelihood of getting a successful challenge to the law through the North Carolina courts, Palmquist said.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, is giving Equality N.C. $10,000 for work to keep the question off the ballot.Palmquist said its community organizer would work on getting ban opponents to call and e-mail legislators.
Obsessive "diversity is perversity" Mecklenburg County Commissioner Bill James, wasted no time in finding a microphone to bleat his bigotry."The purpose is not just to prevent Massachusetts people coming down," he said. "It's also to put a big letter of shame on the behavior. We don't want them here. We don't want them marrying. If you're going to do it in San Francisco, it's your own business."The people are speaking out against the amendment. Here's a letter to the editor from the Wilmington Star News:In an e-mail last week, James predicted easy passage. "Bet it will pass with over 60 percent," he wrote. "The public in my opinion knows the difference between perversity and diversity."
I was copied on a letter from a constituent to Sen. Rick Gunn , read it below the fold.Why is Thom Goolsby (R-New Hanover) co-sponsoring NC Senate Bill S-106 "Defense of Marriage"? ...Are his rights in danger?
I think people who support this legislation are same people in history who; did not want woman to vote, did not want Blacks to have rights, and they most likely support other kinds of discrimination. They obviously feel they deserve more rights than the person standing next to them.
Gay marriage is inevitable. He's on the wrong side of the future. Thom, please get to work on our budget and helping the NC economy, and stop working on legislation that tries to Limit the rights of your fellow Americans.
John Howard
Wilmington
To Sen. Rick Gunn (R-Alamance, Caswell)
Related:Dear Sir,
How dare you?! I am a gay man living with my long time partner here in the state I was raised. My partner is from Texas and one of the highlights of bringing him here, as I stated to him, was that NC is a more progressive state than Texas. That being said, I did not expect anywhere near the action going on now from my home state government.
How is it legal? How is it constitutional? How is it right? What have I done to your marriage sir? Because I sure as hell can tell you what your doing to mine! Not to mention the tax situation, but this kind of discrimination brings with it a focused ignorance and hatred upon some of the people you happen to represent.
I am innocent, Sir! And I did not start this. I've never really asked for much, but you can bet I will join with anyone who will listen to defeat this bill which you are helping to co-sponsor. You are helping to cost me time, aggravation, my rights and my future. And I ask you to stop, please, while the stopping is good. Don't you realize in your position the difference you can make positively on this state if you would focus energy not on how we are different but how we are alike and can work together. You NEED me sir. We both need each other to succeed, or NC will not succeed. I beg you for your political future and in the name of all things right and good in this world to pull your support from this bill and stop joining with those with an agenda of hate.
You are and can be better than this, Sir.
I did not vote for you, but I have met you indirectly in passing. You nodded hello to me, sir. In Burlington, on my way to work one morning. You were picking up your election signage. Did I appear then to be a threat to your marriage then? Did I not look like everyone else? My business is and should be the same as yours, sir. With a strive to make things better for my fellow man, wither or not I believe in his philosophy, religion or way of life. I deserve and am entitled to the same rights and privileges as you. I would not be so bold as to ask someone to take your rights away on a ballot. Hell I don't have the ability to marry right now anyway. How could you possibly think to make it worse!!
In closing, sir, if this is about your ideology, I kindly ask you to can it or stuff it, Sir. No matter your beliefs on the matter, the fact is the state should sanction nor condemn "religious" marriage. However, legal marriage, partner ship, domestic union, whatever the hell you want to call it is a right and privilege to all.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That last part means you, Mr. Gunn. I implore you please, to do your duty and defend me, though you don't agree with me. At least then I could honestly say that you're an honorable and descent man, as I believe a person of your office should be.
Brent N. Jones
Haw River, N.C.
* Game on in NC: marriage amendment bill filed in state Senate; would put it on 2012 ballot
Queer Rising NY marriage equality protest; live Tweeting by Village Voice's Steven Thrasher
The Village Voice's Steven Thrasher is there...
The Family Research Council's deceptive use of social science to defend DOMA
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
With news coming out of Washington from Speaker of the House John Boehner that Congress may take up the defense of DOMA and recent comments from the Family Research Council stating that they are in talks in helping with that possible defense, one has to ask will the propaganda and anti-gay points in yesterday's post and today's post be a part of that strategy.On its Defend DOMA web page, the Family Research Council has another link, Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same Sex Marriage which supposedly speaks against gay marriage. While this piece isn't as guttural as Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?, there still remains a number of misdirections.
In the piece, Family Research Council is basing the argument against gay marriage on the claim that "children need both a mother and a father."
FRC makes the claim that lesbians household "raising children without a father" is wrong because according to them:
Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
And gay households "raising children without a mother" is wrong because:
fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family.
However, very little (if any at all) of the literature/studies FRC cites to make these conclusions have anything to do with same-sex households.
When the organization does address the studies involving same-sex households, it throws out an insulting addendum:
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
There is a huge problem with FRC citing Nock's testimony. He gave it in 2001. Since that time, there have been numerous other studies , as well as personal stories from children in same-sex households which back up the conclusion that same-sex households are a perfectly fine place to raise children.
Also, Nock's testimony was rejected by other researchers. (*see below)
But keep in mind the phrase by FRC when criticizing studies involving same-sex households - most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.
If these studies is biased and have no credibility, then why do FRC have no problem citing them when attacking same-sex households:
Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
FRC's audacity is incredible here. The organization is saying "Stacey is biased for same-sex marriage, so we cannot totally believe what she says. However, we will believe the part which puts gay marriage in a negative light."
The gymnastics behind this logic is astounding, especially when one takes into account that this is a distortion of Stacey's study. She has gone on record on more than one occasion complaining about how organizations like FRC cherry-pick her work.
And on that same note, FRC also cited the work of Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett to make the case against gay marriage in the piece, even though Pruett has also complained about how his work was being "cherry picked" by religious right groups and spokespeople.
FRC is equally dishonest when it makes the claim that gay men will not be faithful in marriages.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
According to its footnotes, FRC received this information from two sources. One was:
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
Of course this leads one to ask if this study looked at civil unions in Vermont during the first year, then are the more recent updates.
The second source is more intriguing:
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
Gay marriage wasn't legal in 1984.
Taking into account my post yesterday combined with this one, I think that we need to distinguish what's going on here.
The spin from the Family Research Council and those who support them, as they trot out this mess, is that they are defending Christian beliefs and morality.
That's an incorrect spin.
The Family Research Council is using lies and distortions to defend what they call Christian beliefs. And I make that distinction because true Christian beliefs don't need to be defended through the spreading of propaganda and the distortion of legitimate science.
Jesus said that "I am the way, the truth, and the light." He did not say "feel free to lie with impunity as long as you are doing it in defense of my kingdom."
When FRC and other so-called pro-family groups engage in these tactics, they hurt the integrity of Christianity. They are sending a message that underneath it all, Christianity is a lie.
They send the message that Christian is fiction, because it if it were real, those who practice it wouldn't need to play such games as manipulating science or scaring heterosexuals into thinking that lgbts are seeking to take away their children.
Organizations like FRC probably have the lgbt community beat on so many levels such as planning, organization, and monetary resources.
But when it come to truth, when it come to basic honesty, the Family Research Council and all of the other groups who wrap themselves up in the flag of morality are sorely lacking.
And those are the value which they should consider central to their message. But they don't. Instead, they reduce Christianity from a religion of hope and love to a cynical way of gaining political power.
Bottom line - the way things are going, Jesus may have to come back, die on the cross, raise Himself from the dead an immeasurable amount times to stem the damage that FRC and other like-minded groups do in His name.
*There is a huge irony in the fact that FRC used both Steven Nock's 2001 testimony and Judith Stacey's work to demonize same-sex families because Stacey published a scathing affadavit which criticized Nock's testimony. In part it reads:
Professor Nock is a survey researcher and demographer, which represents a specific methodology and a sub-field of inquiry within sociological research. When Professor Nock provides his lengthy description of research methodology, he adopts the extreme, untenable position that the genre of large-scale survey research that he generally conducts is the only acceptable research method in all of the social science disciplines and subfields.
Professor Nock inappropriately applies this model of research, which is only one model within his own particular sub-field of sociology – demography – to an entirely different discipline, child development, which is a branch of developmental psychology. This is a research specialty and sub-discipline in which Professor Nock has no expertise. The body of research with which he takes issue in his affidavit was conducted primarily, if not exclusively, by psychologists with expertise in the field of child development. None of the studies that Professor Nock is evaluating were conducted by sociologists or by demographers.
Related post
Family Research Council pulling the 'gay = promiscuous pedophiles' card to defend DOMASen. Madaleno's Continued Silence To His Constituents On Maryland's Gender Identity Bill
The email below was sent by Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno to his Montgomery County, Maryland constituents on February 28, 2011.
In the text of this email, he again doesn't mention the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235) -- the bill that bans discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of gender identity.Week 7 Update: Making History, Protecting our Future
Dear Friends,
I am sure many of you are aware that the Maryland Senate passed the Civil Marriage Protection Act (SB 116) by a vote of 25 to 21. This bill, giving same gender couples the freedom to marry, moves us one step closer to equality for all Marylanders. I want to thank all of my colleagues who voted for this historic piece of legislation. Special thanks go to Senator Jamie Raskin for his leadership as floor leader and Senator Rob Garagiola for his determined efforts as chief sponsor.
Now the bill moves to the House of Delegates, where a close vote is expected. Please take a minute to find out who represents you in the House (if you do not know) and ask your Delegates to vote for the Civil Marriage Protection Act. I am proud to report that my District 18 colleagues, Delegates Al Carr, Ana Sol Guti?rrez, and Jeff Waldstreicher are all strong supporters.
While marriage equality is an historic achievement, crafting a fiscally responsible budget and maintaining excellence in our schools are also among my top priorities. The General Assembly must pass a budget that balances sometimes painful cuts with investments in our future. We can prevent drastic reductions to programs for people with disabilities by passing a "dime-a-drink" alcohol tax increase. We can keep our communities united and help make college affordable by passing the Maryland DREAM Act. We can close the racial and economic achievement gap in our schools by instituting programs that reduce chronic absenteeism. Even with problems that may seem intractable, I will fight for progressive solutions.
In this new economy, our state can position itself as an innovative magnet for job growth in new industries. While states around the country are pulling back, Maryland must continue moving forward. We must invest in biotechnology, clean energy and the jobs of the future. We will make wind energy a priority and use public-private partnerships to encourage capital investment in our businesses. With the right choices, Maryland will be in a position to excel in the coming decade.
Upcoming Hearings
Public Schools - Student Attendance - Preventing Chronic Absenteeism (SB 474) - With more than 84,000 Maryland students missing more than 20 days of school each year, we need to take action to prevent chronic absenteeism. This bill would require Maryland schools to report their attendance records to the State Board of Education and develop a plan to make sure students stay in school.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011--1 p.m. - Senate Education, Health, and Environment Committee
Thanks for taking the time to read my weekly update. If you have questions or comments, you can call my office at (301) 858-3137 or e-mail me at Richard.Madaleno@senate.state.md.us. You can also friend me on Facebook for the latest updates.
Best,
Rich Madaleno
Senator-District 18P.S. District 18 Night in Annapolis is on Monday, March 7th from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. All Legislative District 18 residents are invited! RSVP by Thursday, March 3rd to (301) 858-3137. Light buffet will be served.
By Authority: Marylanders for Richard Madaleno. Linda Eisenstadt, Treasurer
This omission again doesn't appear to align with Sen. Madaleno's campaign website where under the Issues section where Sen. Madaleno states this about his past efforts on banning gender identity discrimination for housing, employment, and public accommodation (emphasis added):
Securing Civil Rights
As your State Senator, I have fought diligently for the civil rights and civil liberties of all Marylanders. My leadership has included:
... Serving as lead sponsor of legislation to ban employment, housing and public accommodations discrimination on the basis of one's gender identity.
As of February 28, 2011, Sen. Madaleno hasn't sponsored HB 235 in the Senate. And, HB 235 Is a weaker bill from the one he previously sponsored -- HB 235 doesn't include public accommodation protections, and the gender identity civil rights bill he sponsored previously did include those protections.
HB 235 should have written to align with Maryland state precedence -- all civil rights bills previously for other minority groups included language to ban employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination. However, HB 235 ban of discrimination on the basis of one's gender identity only is for just for employment and housing -- not public accommodation.
And it appears that Sen. Madaleno has been publicly silent about public accommodation being stripped from HB 235 when it occurred, even though he sponsored a bill in a previous year that included those public accommodation protections.
Not only has Sen. Madaleno not sponsored HB 235 in the Senate -- at least as of close of business on February 28th, 2011 -- he has also on February 28th, 2011 still left out constituent messaging on even the weakened gender identity civil rights bill.
Again, I'll quote Martin Luther King Jr. on silence:
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
The silence from the seven members of Maryland's LGBT Caucus -- which includes Sen. Rich Madaleno -- has been deafening.
There is a moment available today -- on Tuesday, March 1st in the House Office Building, room 218 -- where Maryland's LGBT Caucus can break the caucus silence, and speak as a single voice with a message similar to this message:
We, as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus of Maryland's legislative branch, strongly support passage of the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235) before the Maryland State Legislature -- the bill that bans gender identity based discrimination in employment and housing. We will work with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for HB 235 to be passed in both the House of Delegates and the Senate.We know that members of the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community aren't happy that public accommodation protections are not in the current version of this year's Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill. Should the current Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill become law this year, the LGBT Caucus is committing itself to submitting -- and working with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for -- a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in public accommodations. We will submit and to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for such a bill passed into law, and we will do this every year until such a bill passes into law.
Should the current Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill not become law this year, the LGBT Caucus is committing itself to submitting -- and working with our colleagues in the state legislature to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for -- a bill that would ban gender identity based discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. We will submit and to do whatever it takes to get the votes needed for such a bill passed into law, and we will do this every year until such a bill passes into law.
To state less than that would be to watch Maryland's LGBT Caucus send the message that the "T" in LGBT is a small "t," as well as send a message that public accommodation discrimination on the basis of gender identity is acceptable to Maryland's LGBT Caucus members.
Employement, housing, and public accommodation discrimination based on gender identity should be unacceptable to the Maryland LGBT Caucus; it should be unacceptable to to LGBT community as a whole too.
~~~~~
Related:
* Maryland's Seven LGBT Legislators Need To Speak Out As A Caucus For Transgender Equality
* Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination bill introduced in Maryland House
* ENDA: The LGBT Community Has Ceded The "Bathroom Bill" Argument Without A Fight
* ENDA: An 800-Pound Transgender Elephant - With Issues - In The Room
* Guest column by Kerry Eleveld - The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality
.
February 28, 2011
"Obama's homosexual America!"
Washington Times, aka The Moonie Times, opines today about Obama Justice department dropping of the defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Jeffery Kuhner in Obama’s homosexual America, tosses a lovely a word-salad of everything bad from Bolsheviks, euthanasia, hippies, and bestiality (of course). He takes a mournful look back at what a Founding Father had to say about teh gays and give us a peek forward down the Pagan path that can lead only to the extinction of the human race!
There are even "transgender scare quotes!"
The Top 15 Batshittiest Things Mr. Kuhner says in: "Obama’s homosexual America!"
The homosexual rights movement is on the verge of destroying marriage. If successful, it will permanently alter society.
A blatant surrender to the homosexual lobby
the president is a radical social liberal.
[Obama] has nothing but kind things to say about euthanasia.
In short, he champions the culture of death.
He is trying to make homosexuality a permanent, legitimate feature of American life.
Mr. Obama is paving the way for the [the gay's] final assault on the last bastion of conservatism - the family.
the homosexual constituency, which has become a powerful force within the Democratic Party.
From its inception, the modern left has sought to destroy the traditional family.
One of the first things the Bolsheviks did upon seizing power in Russia was to promote free love, abortion and open marriage.
personal liberation, hedonism and moral relativism dissolve the very pillars of Middle America: self-control, personal responsibility, patriotism and God.
A homosexual society is a childless one - doomed to extinction.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, said homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.
The homosexual rights lobby is trying to mainstream perversion and vice.
Polygamy, "transgender" unions, bestiality, pedophilia - all forms of deviant sexual behavior could claim discrimination.
They are slowly reverting to a failed, pagan past. Theirs is not a brave new world; it is a corrupt old one.
This President Obama he's talking about sounds like a shoe-in to wrap-up the 2012 endorsement of the "No Values Voters," the political demographic who believe in a complete lack of morals and are committed to carrying out unspeakable acts of evil.
Wait! This just in:
Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act
WASHINGTON—Reports continue to pour in from around the nation today of helpless Americans being forcibly taken from their marital unions after President Obama dropped the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this week, leaving the institution completely vulnerable to roving bands of homosexuals.
'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' star Jane Russell passes away
Jane Russell, whose voluptuous good looks won the attention of millionaire Howard Hughes and launched her on a movie career, died Monday of respiratory failure at her home in Santa Maria, Calif. She was 89.And one of her most (in)famous numbers, from Gentleman Prefer Blondes (1953) -- "Ain't There Anyone Here for Love?" Director Howard Hawks couldn't have conceived a more homoerotic setpiece under the Hays Code.
Generally cast in fluff films like 1943's The Outlaw that showed off her well-endowed beauty, Russell reached the pinnacle of her career with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953), starring in the comedy with Marilyn Monroe.
And I love the opening number from Gentleman Prefer Blondes - "Two Little Girls From Little Rock". I am a complete sucker for the gorgeous, completely overadorned, overworked costumes they wear here (probably because I wish I had the figure to rock them, lol). The 1930s-50s -- what an era for Hollywood wardrobe design!
If you're from my generation, you probably first saw Russell as the spokesperson for Playtex bras in the late 60s/early 70s - before you could actually see a woman in a brassiere on TV - they always showed the "boulder holder" on a mannequin or with the model wearing the bra under clothes.
All too predictable: Anti-gay pastor booked with masturbating at Metairie park
My favorite comment so far on Twitter came from Dan Choi:The Rev. Grant Storms, the Christian fundamentalist known for his bullhorn protests of the Southern Decadence festival in the French Quarter, was arrested on a charge of masturbating at a Metairie park Friday afternoon.
Storms, 53, of 2304 Green Acres Road in Metairie, was taken into custody at Lafreniere Park after two women reported seeing him masturbating in the driver's seat of his van, which was parked near the carousel and playground, a Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office report said.
The first woman told deputies she was taking her children to the playground and parked next to the van at about noon. As she was walking around her own vehicle, she noticed the van windows were down and the occupant was "looking at the playground area that contained children playing, with his zipper down...," the report said. The woman noted that he was masturbating and quickly ushered her children out of her car.
She told a second woman, who walked to the van and also spotted the man masturbating, the report said. The second witness told deputies that the driver saw her and tried to conceal the zipper area of his pants with his hand.
@ltdanchoi: I'd recommend picketing his anti-gay church, but he might masturbate on you & your children.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
