Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 84
February 28, 2011
Texas School District Bans Christian Club to Stop "Gay Club"
I've blogged on LGBT youth issues several times here as well as emphasizing the issues in countless comments. It is a set of issues important to me. I know I've said it several times before: the quickest way to get my blood boiling is by attacking LGBT kids, but that's not why this story really hit home for me. This story hit home for me because for the 13 years I was in grade school this was home to me. I entered kindergarten in the fall of 1980 at Flour Bluff Primary School and graduated from Flour Bluff High School in the spring of 1993.
Last November, a student named Bianca "Nikki" Peet, put in an application for a gay-straight alliance at Flour Bluff High School (FBHS) and submitted to the principal a draft constitution and all the necessary paperwork for the club. The principal told her that she'd have to wait until after the holiday breaks. When she followed up with him again in January, he objected twice to provisions in her draft constitution and to the club's name. Twice Nikki made revisions along the lines the principal wanted including changing the name of the proposed club to the Tolerance Club and expanding its scope beyond just addressing homophobia and transphobia, but also racism and other forms of intolerance. Her application was still denied. At that point Nikki did the right thing and went public, alerting the news media and getting help from the GSA at the local university, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.
The District responded by saying the club was against the district's 2005 policy against having a "limited open forum" and that they did not have to approve the club; however, Flour Bluff High School, despite the stated policy, has long had a Fellowship of Christian Athletes club, Key Club and several other non-curricular clubs that meet on campus and are officially recognized by the district and were listed in the student handbook and on the district's website.
By Federal Law, known as the Equal Access Act, passed in 1984 and codified at 20 U.S.C. ?4071, a school automatically has a "limited open forum" if the school permits any non-curricular student organization. And if a school has a limited open forum and the school receives any federal funding, the law provides that the school may not "deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings." The law was challenged in a court case that ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 1990. In that case, Westside Community Bd. of Ed. vs Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), the Court upheld the statute writing
A 'limited open forum' exists whenever a public secondary school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time. ... Thus, even if a public secondary school allows only one 'noncurriculum related student group' to meet, the Act's obligations are triggered and the school may not deny other clubs, on the basis of the content of their speech, equal access to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.
A statement (PDF) put out by the district's superintendent, Dr. Julie Carbajal (disclaimer), denied the existence of a limited open forum telling the local newspaper, "is not subject to the part of the Equal Access Act requiring the school to offer fair opportunities for students to form student-led extracurricular groups," despite the existence of the FCA and other clubs. One student interviewed for a subsequent article by the paper was even directly quoted as saying the FCA was OK because it really a curriculum related organization, but that quote was later edited out of the online story in favor of a more generic indirect quote that was not so obviously factually incorrect. ("Claybourn said all other clubs at the school are steeped in curriculum and promote learning and critical thinking while Peet's proposed group would not be educational.") Of course under the First Amendment, in accordance with long standing precedent of the Supreme Court, a Fellowship of Christian Athletes student organization cannot be a curriculum related organization.
In the days since, the District obviously began to talk with its lawyers and found out they were pretty much screwed and that they would not be able to permit the FCA to continue as a student organization while prohibiting the Tolerance Club. As a result according to the most recent Corpus Christi Caller-Times article on the controversy, the FCA has now been "asked [...] to meet off campus while the district studies the legality of allowing the club while disallowing a club supporting homosexual students." It has also been removed from the list of extra-curricular activities for students on the District's website, though other organizations that would not qualify as curricular organizations are still listed.
The great irony of this is the reason for the Equal Access Act's existence. When passed in 1984, it was written in a facially neutral way so as to insure the right of Christian students to for Christian student organizations on school campuses if the schools permitted other non-curricular organizations and clubs. The 1990 court case was about one such Christian club and was argued successfully before the Supreme Court by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, a virulently right wing group dedicated to defending religious freedom and freedom of speech. However, over the last couple of decades, the law has also been used to secure the right of gay-straight alliances to meet in public schools as well.
On this matter however, this really isn't a left or right issue. This is a freedom issue upon which both sides can agree (though that doesn't mean they necessarily do). This is a matter where what is good for the goose is good for the gander pretty much sums of the state of the law. If religious students get to have their organizations, LGBT students are free to start their own and vice versa.
But the District's solution to this is to basically shut both of them out. I think this is wrong. First, I have no problem with the idea of a Christian based club in the school if it is non-curricular. If students that find their faith to be an important part of their life, they should be able to have a forum to talk about it. I also think it is at least equally important that such a forum exist for LGBT students, particularly in light of the hardship and rejection many face at the hands of society and even their own family. Having a group of fellow LGBT peers and straight allies creates a place where LGBT student can feel safe expressing themselves and help foster a more tolerant environment around them. Indeed, the act of kicking the FCA off of campus is in all likelihood going to make life more difficult on the LGBT students at Flour Bluff.
Nikki Peet has said that she has experienced a hostile anti-LGBT environment at Flour Bluff. And I believe her...not just because she says so, but because of my own experiences as a closeted gay teen there 20 years ago. While I don't care to go into as much detail as I did in my letter to Dr. Carbajal last week, I can definitely say I experienced anti-LGBT hostility as a student at the Junior High and High School. And I wasn't even out. The name calling and the occasional shove however, were mild compared to worst incident where another student in my physical education class threatened to go to his car, get his gun and shoot me in the head for being a "fairy," an incident which got him arrested and suspended.
There was also the time that I sought to end my own life by swallowing a bottle of pills and going to sleep hoping to never wake up. Instead I got one hell of an upset stomach with vomiting that held me out of school for a day. My parents never knew until many years later the cause of that "sickness."
So you can see, this is very personal for me. I have already sent Dr. Carbajal and the high school principal (who was not with the district when I was there) a letter talking about my experiences in hopes they will change their minds and let all students have the freedom to express themselves in a respectful manner. It pains me to have to have to do this against the district where I grew up and where my parents both worked, but the rights and safety of the LGBT kids, both out and closeted, in the Bluff are at stake, in my opinion. I urge you to add your voice to this fight, please contact the district's administration. I have included contact info below
Email
Dr. Julie Carbajal, District Superintendent: jcarbajal@flourbluffschools.net
James Crenshaw, High School Principal: jcrenshaw@flourbluffschools.net
Phone/Fax:
District Central Office: (361) 694-9713, Lynn Kaylor, Public Information Coordinator
High School Office: (361) 694-9100
High School Fax: (361) 694-9802
Mailing Address (for both)
2505 Waldron Road
Corpus Christi, TX 78418
A protest in front of the school is being planned for 9AM on Friday, 4 March. See the Facebook page for the protest for details.
Both of my parents worked for the Flour Bluff Independent School District from the late 1960's until their retirement in 2003. During part of my father's tenure as the principal of the Junior High School, he worked directly with Dr. Carbajal, who was the campus' curriculum supervisor, before she was promoted to Asst. Superintendent for curriculum and instruction and later Superintendent just months before my parents' retirements. She has been with the district for about 30 years as a teacher and administrator.
This Is What We're Fighting To End
A story of a Belgian couple who fought for nearly two and half years to bring their own son home from the Urkaine is currently circulating. My attention was drawn to a Belgian news story that chronicles their struggle. The video is above. (You can turn on the closed captioning for English.) The English transcript from YouTube is below the fold. One of the fathers explains:
According to the spokesperson of Foreign Affairs, this is because surrogacy is not legally regulated in Belgium. Strangely, it is not forbidden, but it is not allowed either!
They weren't alerted to this beforehad, but the couple went the surrogacy route because their research indicated:
Gay couples can legally adopt children in Belgium since 2006 but Peter and Laurent hear that it is very difficult in reality. For both domestic and foreign children are same-sex adoptive parents almost never accepted.
Even a DNA test confirming the father's paternity seems to have had little effect on speeding up the resolution of this case, as it dragged on for more than a year after, while the child languished in an orphanage.
I think, it's an important demonstration how LGBTs, the world over, must struggle in gray areas of the law that afford them so little protection and advantages others for granted. The video is above, the English transcript is below the fold. This couple's story is so heartbreaking, but bearable, knowing that there is a ultimately, happy ending.
From MSNBC: Laurent Ghilain, second from right, holds his son Samuel Ghilain as he arrives at Zaventem airport in Brussels on Saturday.
Below is an English transcript from YouTube:
Can you imagine? Bearing a child and not being allowed to see it grow up? It is happening to Laurent, for already 2 years and 2 months. Laurent is the biological father of Samuel, a boy conceived by a surrogate mother in Ukraine. That was the only way he and his (legally married) husband Peter saw it possible to make a child.
It seemed to them a legally watertight solution, but this was not the case with the Belgian authorities. Laurent and Peter are trying to move heaven and earth to bring their child to our country (Belgium). The whole thing would cost them 25.000 EUR, but it has already left them 80.000 EUR poorer.
This is the story of 2 fathers, who may not be a father, apparently, A little town in the south of France, the Belgian couple Peter and Laurent moved here 2,5 years ago. Laurent started his own fitness bussiness and Peter works as a cardiologist at the local hospital
We were very well received here, although maybe you would think that in a small town in the south of France, a couple of 2 guys would not be easily accepted, but that was not at all a problem, on the contrary. For the 2 of us it was very clear we both wanted children, we have both always wanted that.
How could we fill that the desire for children? That was of course not evident.
Of course we informed ourselves first about adoption in Belgium. We had friends that had tried that but never succeeded, and they were on a waiting list for more than 3 years! Gay couples can legally adopt children in Belgium since 2006 but Peter and Laurent hear that it is very difficult in reality. For both domestic and foreign children are same-sex adoptive parents almost never accepted. So then we informed ourselves about surrogate mothers, first in our circle of friends and family.
There were girlfriends that had once said: "if you ever want children, we can always talk about that". We talked about it, and it of course it was not that easy, so nothing was really possible that way. Then we started to look for countries where it is possible, where there are programs for surrogate mothers the USA, Ukraine, India, ..
Ultimately the couple chooses for Ukraine, because they have the most trust an in organisation over there. An egg is fertilized by IVF with sperm from Laurent, and implanted in the surrogate mother.
On November 24, 2008 their son Samuel is born!
We arrived there at 10:00 a.m. We immediatly went to see him at the hospital. Beforehand I had a lot of questions: How will it be for the first time? How will I react? But the first time you take your child into your arms, you forget all about that, and everything goes very naturally. It was paradise, we followed his rhythm, everything was perfect!
And the intention was that everything would remain perfect.. We met the surrogate mother, and we felt very empathic about her, thinking how it must be for her.. but she was very cool about it, everything was fine by her! We asked her if she would like a present from us, but she only wanted us to pay for her taxi, and that was it for her.
Everything goes according to plan, until they take their baby to the Belgian embassy in Kiev. The consul refuses to give Samuel a Belgian passport! According to the spokesperson of Foreign Affairs, this is because surrogacy is not legally regulated in Belgium. Strangely, it is not forbidden, but it is not allowed either!
People go abroad, they find themselves a surrogate mother, after 9 months the child is born and they come with their birth certificate to the embassy, and they ask for us to recognize that birth certificate. We have no legal basis to recognize the birth certificate, and on that basis we can also give no official papers to that child.
Was it naive to think that Belgium would accept a child born from a surrogate mother? Maybe.. but I had informed myself in the Belgian Embassy, and they didn't tell us that it's Belgium that's going to block it, and that they wouldn't be able to give us the papers that we needed to get Samuel to Belgium! If they told us that beforehand, we would never have started it..
Peter and Laurent are forced to hope and wait for an answer from Foreign Affairs or a Belgian court. They return home, because their jobs are waiting, and they leave Samuel in a foster family in Ukraine. The foster family were he was staying, was ok. they were expensive, 1000 EUR per month, but they were friendly.
It was a family with children, and we felt confident about that place. I have no idea who and at what point could have taken a decision, or who could have provided a solution. It was not the ambassador, not the Foreign Policy Minister,..
They're all stabbing their heads in the sand, nobody wants to compromise themselves. But we always had hope.. It wasn't until the interim (court procedure), that we first heard from the counterparty.
The prosecutor was simply devastating, when I came out of there I felt like I was a monster! That I was a selfish person and only thought of myself and never about the welfare of my son!
Meanwhile, the time is ticking away without Samuel. 2 times the case is presented in interim (Belgian court), 2 times the judge gives a negative answer.
Even with a DNA test that proves that Laurent is the father. Peter and Laurent visit Samuel a few times, but when the situation drags on for longer than one year the foster family starts to threaten them!
They said they had enough, if we couldn't get a Belgian passport, they would put Samuel anonymously on the street or in an orphanage so we would never be able to find him, and that would be the end of the story. That put us with our backs against the wall so we decided to go get him anyway.
An act of desperation, because bringing a child without official papers to Belgium, is kidnapping. The foster family didn't want to give him up because we had no official papers, so I just took him and we left.
It was after all our own son! We took him to the other side of the country, to the border with Poland. There a girlfriend was waiting for us, she would get him across the border, and we would wait for her on the other side.
But that went completely wrong! The next day we went to the police because we saw no one and we weren't able to reach anyone by phone. In hindsight, they lost their Mobile to the Police during their arrest on suspicion of child abduction and child trafficking.
They're able to bail their girlfriend out of jail for 10.000 EUR. Samuel ends up in a Ukrainian orphanage.. I've seen the footage, it seemed to be clean in the sense that each child had his own bed, clean clothes, some toys and activities, so good..
But he no longer smiled on that film, while he was actually a very open and jovial child was as we knew him! And he was cared for by people in white aprons, very sterile, no real parental figures.
I don't know it anymore. This is no way of living. Of course there is the guilt, because there is still a child in an orphanage, and that's probably our responsibility. You keep asking yourself a lot of questions. Whether it was a good decision. One wonders whether ..if we we shouldn't have done it, If it might have been better not to go through with it. Maybe we had better ignored our desire to have children.
You do not choose to be gay, but ... it's not allowed in Belgium, OK. Maybe in a few years time it is.
We hope indeed that a humanitarian solution can be found, and we certainly follow his situation closely. We are committed to it, and it's indeed very difficult to see that the child has to stay this long in an orphanage. Foreign Affairs says it can do nothing, as long as surrogacy is not legally regulated.
And without a government, (February 1, 2011: Belgium 232 days without government) everything is blocked! The Belgian court for its part, promises a verdict this month. If that's negative for the 3th time, Peter and Laurent want to bring it to the European Court.
Laurent never comes into this room.. never, never, never. I'm scared that Samuel, because of those 2 years, 1 year in a foster family, and already more than 1 year in the orphanage, that he will experience difficulties because of that.
And also that he would end up here with people that are strangers to him, that it would be once again a new situation for him. That's the worst.
That we might have to give up on him one day. To think of him. To give up before he begins to understand what's all happening around him.
That maybe he should better be adopted by another loving family. We have already said to each other: perhaps that decision forces itself upon us, if Belgium is not quick to make a decision.
Fortunately they did not give up, and last week welcomed little Samuel into their home.
But this is what marriage equality fight is all about: recognizing that LGBT families are as important, as valid as any. That the law should respect the ties that bind our families are as worthy of recognition as those that bind a man and woman.
That our interests in raising our children are valid, should be respected, in a court of law, the chambers of the legislatures, at a foreign consulate, in family court, and eventually, in the PTA meetings, in the playgroups. And society should respect our families as equally valid units of loving individuals just trying our best to get by, like any other.
It sadly too often doesn't right now. Children, as with this case, are torn from their biological parent, or from the non-biological parent they've always known.
Or, our legally wedded spouses are deported, yes, by the United States government. Until this respect is won at the highest levels of power, it will be hard for it to trickle down to the playgrounds, to the courts, to the media, to the classrooms and playgrounds.
This will end someday. Because it must. Equal protection under the law is the promise and the imperative, here in America and everywhere.
Real lives, like Samuel Ghilain's--who lived two years needlessly in an orphanage--hang in the balance.
This and that - headlines to surf over to...
* Let's start out with the ridiculous: Right-Wing Commentator Calls Marriage Equality "An Act of Societal Suicide".
Conservative activist Alan Caruba usually works as a shill for corporations and is the former communications director of the American Policy Committee, which staunchly opposes environmental protections and the United Nations. Instead of criticizing regulations on businesses, Caruba yesterday launched a tirade against the Obama administration's decision to stop defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act, calling marriage equality "an act of societal suicide" and the administration's decision "a stealth attack on the nation."Caruba: "I have always thought that "gay" was an odd choice of words to describe homosexuals because those whom I have known rarely evinced much happiness about being regarded by the rest of society as aberrations. They may have made their personal peace with it, but the notion that a society based on heterosexuality should regard them as "normal" defies logic."
*
Christian Broadcasters Urged to Fight 'Gay is the New Black' Agenda
. WTF ever. His arguments are pathetic.Pastor and cultural apologist Voddie Baucham challenged Christian broadcasters at their annual convention on Saturday to not buy into the "gay is the new black" propaganda, but instead to remain committed to defending biblical marriage on the airwaves.A note - at the National Religious Broadcasters event, Rev. Cindi Love, the Executive Director of Soulforce, will participate in a Public Policy Debate on the church's response to the gay rights movement. The debate, to be held March 1 at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Nashville, will be moderated by socially conservative radio host Janet Parshall, and will feature Joe Dallas, "former homosexual" and "ex-gay rights activist" and co-author of The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality, representing opponents of gay rights...."The reason is the homosexuals have effectively co-opted blackness...to where now, we actually believe gay is the new black and we actually believe homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue," he explained.
[H]omosexual activists attack the man and label them a "homophobe" or "bad person" and with the question-begging logic tactic they only assume gay marriage is a fundamental right without ever proving it. Genetic fallacy is used when homosexual activists say, "you are using your religion to impose your morality on me," thereby rejecting the argument simply based on where it comes from, not based on the logic of that argument.
Reading from several Bible verses, Baucham contended that Christians should respond to homosexuality with biblical truth. Some Christians may point to the verse that says not to judge others to justify their silence, he acknowledged, but they should also read the part where Jesus tells us to judge ourselves so that we can judge others.
* Poll: NC residents support same-sex recognition. While everyone talks about battles to save marriage equality in other states, remember that in NC we're going to need help to beat back a marriage discrimination amendment - and the numbers look good - 56% of North Carolinians an amendment in the latest Elon Poll.
* Obama's DOMA Turnaround Prompts New Strategy in Immigration Battle.
Immigration advocates are seizing upon President Obama's decision not the defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and his conclusion that all laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation should be presumed unconstitutional, opening up a new front in the twenty-year battle for immigration equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.* President Obama Strengthens ENDA by Rejecting DOMA .In three cases involving married, same-sex, binational couples facing deportation proceedings in New York, New Jersey and California, attorney Lavi Soloway will argue that the proceedings should be halted because the only thing standing between each couple and a green card is the Defense Of Marriage Act, which he will argue should not be given effect in light of Wednesday's DOJ announcement. Says Soloway, "The issue is urgent as deportation carries with it a 10-year ban on returning."
It is the first time ever that the government of the United States has embraced this pro-equality position. If President Obama's DOJ can successfully convince the federal courts that statutes, regulations or government practices that address or affect sexual orientation should be given what is called "heightened scrutiny," then gays and lesbians would be raised up to the at least the same level of constitutional protection already granted to women facing discrimination. With that kind of strengthened constitutional wind at our backs, gay and lesbian workers will gain some new workplace protections even before ENDA passes, and will benefit once again after ENDA is signed into law - perhaps by President Obama if and when he wins a second term.* DADT repeal implementation news: The Navy is the first branch to start Tier 3 (General Population Training) - OutServe .
* At Flour Bluff High School, the Bullying Starts at the Principal's Office.
Generally when we've talked about bullying, we've framed it in terms of bullying coming from classmates. But at Flour Bluff High School in Corpus Christi, Texas, the bullying starts and emanates directly from the principal's office itself. As Shannon Cuttle pointed out over on Change.org's Education cause earlier today, Flour Bluff's principal, James Crenshaw, has taken a firm stand against a proposed gay-straight alliance (GSA), refusing to work with students or community members to allow a 17-year-old, Nikki Peet, to start a GSA.* SBC Committee Decides against Expelling Members of Pro-Gay Baptist Alliance . Looks like even the bigots are getting weary of this battle.The end result? LGBT students and straight allies within Flour Bluff have no venue or outlet to meet, feel safe, and socialize. And it's all because their principal has decided to take a hard-line -- one that may even be against federal law -- in denying Peet and her classmates the chance to form a GSA.
1PM ET: GLAAD, National Hispanic Media Coalition File FCC Complaint Against Anti-LGBT program
Live video by Ustream
Just in:
Not safe for work, folks:
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) today filed a joint complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. and KRCA, a broadcast television station serving the Los Angeles area. The complaint is in response to a string of broadcasts of the Spanish-language television talk show "Jos? Luis Sin Censura," which often contains indecent, profane, and obscene material, offensive language, nudity, and on-air verbal and physical attacks against women as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The organizations also launched an online action with the Women's Media Center (WMC) where concerned community members and allies can send e-mails to the FCC supporting the complaint or file their own complaints based on episodes they have witnessed.GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios and NHMC President Alex Nogales will discuss the FCC complaint during an online press conference on February 28, 2011 at 1PM EST / 10AM PST. To access the streaming footage please visit http://www.glaad.org/jlsc/pressconference.
In over twenty episodes that aired between June 18 and December 7, 2010, the program contained images and language of the nature that is never displayed or is bleeped out of pre-taped English-language programs of the same nature, including the words "pinche" ("f*cking" in English) and "culero" ("assf*cker"), anti-gay language, including epithets such as ""maric?n," "joto" and "pu?al" (or "f*ggot"), and anti-Latino slurs, such as "mojado" ("wetback"). The program frequently featured blatant nudity and female guests have been shown in violent fights. Hypersexualized images of women's breasts and genitals while stripping for male guests and audience members also make up routine offerings. Guests and audience members were often incited to engage in verbal and even physical attacks, especially against people perceived to be LGBT. Many episodes showed the audience standing and shouting anti-gay epithets and profanity at guests.
"This is certainly not the standard being set by other Spanish-language news and entertainment media, most of which continue to improve in presenting stories of the LGBT community that grow acceptance," said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios. "It is extremely disturbing to see a show like 'Jos? Luis Sin Censura' air this violent language with impunity and without any regard for the safety of our community. At a time when LGBT youth and adults face harassment and violence, it is unacceptable for media to fuel such a climate of intolerance about our community." Last year, GLAAD issued a Call to Action against the program after a June 8 episode showed the audience repeatedly shouting "maric?n" and "pu?al" ("f*ggot") at a guest. The same pattern then occurred just two days later on June 10. GLAAD took action and nearly 1,000 supporters sent a petition registering their concerns with the show and LBI. In 2005, GLAAD led protests against the show which prompted KFC, Chevrolet and Nissan to pull advertising."I am outraged that Liberman Broadcasting is airing this filth at any time of day, no less in the middle of the day when our children are likely to be in the audience," stated NHMC's President and CEO, Alex Nogales. "This program is WAY overboard, and goes far beyond a fleeting moment of expletives or nudity. This is pre-taped, pre-meditated smut, designed to do nothing more than titillate and shock the audience. I have never seen anything like this on English-language television - Jos? Luis makes Jerry Springer look like Mr. Rogers." Nogales added, "I am alarmed that Jos? Luis seems to normalize violence and hate against LGBT people. At a time when so much hate is being directed towards Latinos in this country, we know firsthand that hate and violence have no place in our dialogue." Nogales, a long-time critic of what he sees as a pattern of weak FCC enforcement of its rules against Spanish-language broadcasters, was also responsible for urging the FCC to levy the largest fine ever against a Spanish-language broadcaster, Univision, who in 2007 paid $24 million for failing to follow FCC rules.
Julie Burton, President of the Women's Media Center said that "Programming that is this misogynistic can't even be called television anymore - This is pornographic, and we're here to ensure it's no longer flying under the radar. As women fight for representation and rights internationally, we need to make sure we're modeling equality in the United States. Such objectification harms all women, but has a disproportionate impact on girls."
Guest Post By Eva Kraus: Somebody Is One Pissed Off Trans Chick
By Eva Kraus
It is well known now by those around me that I strongly support ONE community, both as a Trans community and as an TLGB community. It is not hard for me. All equal...all with equal rights. Period. Really simple. It is made easier by the fact that I am both trans and a lesbian. I admit that I kind of feel different about the two labels though. 
It's like... I happen to be lesbian. I like girls. I always liked girls, both before and after my transition, so it is no big deal to me. The trans thing, though....that's me. I guess it is only a big deal to me because it is seems to be a big deal to everyone else on the planet. My beloved genetic partner once asked me, "When do you stop being trans?" I replied, "When everyone else lets me." I think that remains true for most of us who are open about who we are. Of course, much of what I just said is not relevant to why I am so pissed off.
Anyway, back to the One community idea. I was reading some stuff on a friend's Facebook page this morning when I saw a posting about the congressman who recently resigned due to his soliciting dates on Craigslist. It made a comment about him seeking out crossdressing and transsexual (CS/CD) women. I knew after reading this that the sh*t would fly.
So, I get involved in a discussion with a couple of gay guys about the posting. Of course, one of them had to use the term, "shemale". After I explained how offensive it is to a trans woman, likening it to the use of the word "f*g" and "ni**er", he proceeds to quote RuPaul to me. Oh, and "tr**ny" is ok also because RuPaul says it. WTF????? RuPaul, a gay man who does drag says it is ok so that makes it ok? Is every gay man in the community that ignorant? Even after I tell him it is offensive, he insists it is ok. Then he tells me go "sashay my ass" off of the posting and to get over myself!
This is not remotely my first encounter with a tool like this. What are we as a community to do when you try to take the time to educate the community and they refuse to be educated? What are you to do when the largest part of the LGB community, exuding cis-privilege, those empowered with more rights than us, continues to denigrate us and justify their bigotry by quoting others of the same cis class that are empowered? When do you say that is not ok to stand on our necks, dehumanize us and treat us like pets you can f**k with? This a**hole continued to write to me in the most condescending terms.
It is often the issue with the larger gay community. It is about caring, even when it doesn't affect you. It is the issue in Maryland that gives us a bill with no right to use a bathroom with which we identify. Hell, I am post-op. Does the Maryland gender equality bill's lack of public accommodations equality affect me? No. Should I care? You bet I should. We should all care. It continues inequality for the rest of my trans sisters and brothers. It is the "don't worry, we'll come back and get you later" bullsh*t. Tell me, how the hell are you gonna come back and pass a trans only public accomodations bill later? Seriously? How are you gonna do that? I live in Massachusetts. My state is one of the ultimate liberal bastions in the country, Scott Brown notwithstanding. We have same sex marriage. We have full protections against sexual orientation discrimination. 
Yet, we have no statewide gender rights protections. Yeah, they were gonna come back and get us. The hell they will! They won't come back and get us because they see us as annoying pets peeing on their carpet of fun, bothering them as they work to get all they need and want. They don't want to see that many of them are gender variant, too, and that our rights are their rights, that none of us are free until we all are free. It is the issue of trans people cheering the successes of the greater LGB community and even actively supporting them, be it DADT repeal, DOMA repeal or same-sex marriage and not getting the same in return, or getting some of it grudgingly.
Now, if you are a gay guy, do NOT jump all over me. I know that many of you support us and our needs. I know that many of you understand us or try to understand us. I know that many of you have taken the time to listen and learn about trans issues, and more importantly, trans people. The problem is that we SEE a lot more of the a**holes like the one I am talking about and not so much visibility about support for our issues. I want to point out a man like Tom Lang, who is trying hard to support us. He may not always get it right by our standards, but congratulations to him for trying to do so and for being visible. We need more who stand up and mean it. Many of my personal LGB friends are so supportive as well. I love them. They have blessed me with their support.
Anyway, I have typed long enough and hit the keys hard enough that I have calmed down, somewhat. You can't change the world overnight. You can't make anyone like us, want to hire us, and let us use public accommodations (that we are already using) just by passing legislation. It is a start. It is a necessary start. Jamming open the doors of discrimination are so important. Ultimately, it is about education and interaction. Visibility brings positive experiences. Positive experiences ultimately bring elevation of status. That brings us equality and back to "my friend". Dude, you are still a complete tool and a bigot. Own it.
Eva Kraus is a businesswoman and emerging trans voice. Her Facebook page is here.
~~~~~
Further reading:
* Edge on the net: Before Scandal Broke, Former GOP Rep. Lee Reportedly Cruised Transwomen Online
* en/gender: Admirer in the News
~~~~~
Related:
* How NOT to keep your Craigslist trolling on the DL
GOP hate on display: Conservatives oppose Mrs. Obama's anti-obesity campaign
Former first ladies Barbara and Laura Bush worked to end illiteracy. Nancy Reagan famously took on teenage drug use. Lady Bird Johnson planted flowers. But none of them has been seared for something as seemingly benign as calling for kids to eat more vegetables, as Michelle Obama has.
Just about everyone will agree that the nation's children are getting fatter and that obesity is a serious health problem. But the first lady's push for healthier meals and more exercise, which marked its anniversary this month, has provoked a backlash from the right, who complain that the only thing here that's supersized is Big Brother.
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh last week suggested Obama is a hypocrite for dining on ribs and remarked on her waistline in the process.
That was just the latest offering in what has been a steady diet of criticisms.
Maybe the health and well-being of Americans takes a back seat to the profits of the food conglomerates that have caused this epidemic. Maybe the GOP have become dependent on campaign contributions from the vast weight-loss industry. In any case, their position is indefensible.
Maryland's Seven LGBT Legislators Need To Speak Out As A Caucus For Transgender Equality
In April and November, I went to Washington DC with a number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community veterans and activists, and with them I handcuffed myself to the White House Fence for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Repeal of DADT isn't a transgender specific issue, in that when soon lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are allowed to serve openly, transgender people still won't be able to serve openly. I took to the White House Fence though because I operate under this principle regarding ordinary equality for LGBT community members:Ordinary equality isn't about your subcommunity of the LGBT community, nor is it about my subcommunity of the LGBT community. And, it isn't about you; it isn't about me. No, it's about our broad community; it's about us.If an equality issue is an issue for even one subcommunity of the LGBT community, then it we must say together "this is our LGBT equality issue." Then in solidarity we must be prepared to work and sacrifice for the resolution of that equality issue -- our LGBT community equality issue.
In how I decided to work and sacrifice for the repeal of DADT, it didn't matter to me that repeal of DADT wasn't a transgender specific issue. I practice what I preach. I went to jail twice for my lesbian, gay, and bisexual community siblings to further freedom, equality, and justice for our broader LGBT community. Again, ordinary equality isn't about you or me -- instead, it's about us.
We cannot seek achievement for ourselves and forget about progress and prosperity for our community... Our ambitions must be broad enough to include the aspirations and needs of others, for their sakes and for our own.~Cesar Chavez
So with ordinary equality for LGBT community in mind, my eyes turn to Maryland. There are two LGBT bills up in the legislature -- one is for marriage equality, and the other is for adding gender identity to the protected classes for housing and employment.
As one might imagine, there's a lot of LGBT focus in Maryland on the marriage equality bill, and much less LGBT focus on the gender identity bill. Even so, both bills are in trouble in Maryland's legislature.
According to the Baltimore Sun's Md. Senate approves same-sex marriage:
Maryland's Senate passed a landmark measure Thursday evening that would allow same-sex couples to wed, pushing the controversial issue to the House of Delegates, which appears nearly evenly split on the issue....But approval in the House of Delegates is far from assured. The bill in that chamber has 58 sponsors; 71 votes are needed for passage. And if it is passed, opponents would almost certainly petition for a referendum, giving Maryland voters the final say.
...The House traditionally has been the more liberal of the two chambers on social issues. But Republicans gained six seats in the November election.
...Already one of the legislation's original 59 co-sponsors has asked that his name be removed.
Reading between the lines, it appears that -- as of the moment, anyway -- that the 71 votes for marriage equality in Maryland's House of Delegates just aren't there as yet. That's not to say that the votes won't be there, but the fight for marriage equality is far from over.
As one might imagine, one can find statements by Maryland's LGBT legislative leadership regarding marriage equality and this legislative session. Maryland State Senator Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County) released a statement to his constituents relating to Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 24, 2011, identifying his Equality Agenda for the year. He lists two items in his Equality Agenda:
My Equality Agenda
Tuition Equity
In Montgomery County, we celebrate diversity and value education. I am working with my friend and fellow Senator Victor Ramirez, along with Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez and the New Americans Caucus, to pass the Maryland DREAM Act. This bill would make undocumented students who complete high school in Maryland and whose parents pay state income tax eligible for in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Allowing these young people to continue their education will ensure a well-trained and dynamic workforce, which will benefit everyone in our community.
While my colleagues and I work to promote unity and inclusivity, some members of the General Assembly continue to preach intolerance and division. A Baltimore County Delegate is challenging Montgomery College's decision to treat all students that graduate from Montgomery County Public Schools equally. I will continue defending Montgomery College and students in our community against these attacks. Passing the Maryland DREAM Act will bring us one step closer to a federal solution of comprehensive immigration reform.
Marriage Equality
While Congress finally found the political courage to end the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, we are continuing the fight to bring full equality for gays and lesbians in Maryland. I'm happy to tell you that the Majority Leaders in both the Maryland Senate and House of Delegates will serve as the lead sponsors for the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. This symbolic action shows that Maryland's leaders are ready to provide same gender couples with the freedom to marry. Additionally, every legislator from Montgomery County, including my District 18 colleagues Delegates Al Carr, Ana Sol Gutierrez, and Jeff Waldstreicher, have signed on as sponsors.
Working with Judicial Proceedings Chairman Brian Frosh, Majority Leader Rob Garagiola, and my strong ally Senator Jamie Raskin , I will do everything I can to move this bill through the committee process and find the votes on the Senate floor. However, this effort will not succeed without your active support. Please call or e-mail your friends and family around the state and encourage them to contact their State Senator and Delegates to urge them to vote for Marriage Equality this year. If you live outside District 18, make sure you contact your legislators as well.
Note that even though there is a gender identity civil rights bill making it through the Maryland legislative houses -- the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235) -- that bill isn't listed by Sen. Madaleno as one of his Equality Agenda items for this legislative session.
That omission doesn't appear to align with Sen. Madaleno's campaign website where under the Issues section, Sen. Madaleno states this about his efforts regarding civil rights (emphasis added):
[Below the fold, more regarding non-findable commentary on HB 235 by Sen. Madaleno, Del. Macintosh, and the five other Maryland LGBT Caucus members, as well as an ask regarding what the Maryland LGBT Caucus members need to say March 1st regarding HB 235.]
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:
Successfully advocating for domestic partnership benefits for state employees, which go into effect July 1st. I was recognized as "Champion of Our Community" from the LGBT Faculty and Staff Association at the University of Maryland for my work on this and other LGBT issues.
Serving as lead sponsor of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would grant the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.
Serving as a sponsor of legislation to eliminate the inheritance tax paid by surviving domestic partners -- gay or straight -- on jointly owned homes.
Cosponsoring the Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act to protect the rights of all Marylanders to organize to advance their political and social views free of the chilling specter of government surveillance and dossiers. A version of this legislation was signed into law.
Serving as lead sponsor of legislation to ban employment, housing and public accommodations discrimination on the basis of one's gender identity.
I know I'm left wondering why the publicly available text of his recently stated Equality Agenda isn't matching the rhetoric on an important, LGBT community issue identified on the Securing Civil Rights section of his Issues page.
I know I'm also wondering more specifically why public statements in strong support of the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill (HB 235) -- one of the two pieces of LGBT community legislation for this year -- doesn't seem to be readily available when one searches the news, the blogosphere, or Sen. Madaleno's campaign website.
Unfortunately for me, there apparently was a conference call for media on Friday, February 25th. In the call, Senator Madaleno was slated to discus the HB 235, but I wasn't aware of the call -- Pam's House Blend was notified about the call in an email, but I personally wasn't copied on that email, so I missed the call.
I'm a Transgender-American. Again, I went to jail twice in an effort to secure a right to open military service for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers in my broader community. I'm someone who sees the LGBT community as a community of subcommunities, and I'm willing to engage in personal sacrifice for the freedom, equality, and justice of those in my broader community -- even when the particular community issue I'm engaged in working on doesn't directly involve the specific aspirations of the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community.
So, I'm perplexed about Maryland politics regarding LGBT issues and LGBT people. I'm perplexed as to why Sen. Madaleno -- a gay Maryland State Senator who in the past has supported legislation that includes adding public accommodation protections based on gender identity -- either didn't make strong statements to his colleagues and to media in past months on Maryland's gender equality civil rights bill, or his statements weren't reported on in mainstream or LGBT media. I'm very perplexed as to why I can't find statements from Sen. Madaleno in the past few months stating how public accommodation protections shouldn't be stripped from the current Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill. I'm perplexed as to why, during the week of Martin Luther King's birthday, Sen. Madaleno put out an Equality Agenda that didn't include the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill.
Another of Maryland's LGBT community legislative leaders who has publicly commented on the marriage equality bill is Del. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City). From what I understand, Del. McIntosh is the presumed next speaker of the House of Delegates. In Del. McIntosh's recent email to her constituents (also posted to her website), entitled Maggie's Legislative Update: Civil Marriage and Redistricting (February 17, 2011), she highlighted the following:
Civil Marriage: Senate Vote Coming Soon
First, I am pleased to let you know that the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee is expected to issue a favorable report later this afternoon on SB 116, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, meaning it may come to a vote by the full Senate within the next two weeks. The Baltimore Sun reports that Senate President Miller is confident there are the votes necessary to override a potential filibuster and the final vote may be as soon as Monday, February 28th. Assuming SB 116 passes the Senate, it will then come up for discussion in the House Judiciary Committee.
As one of the main sponsors of civil marriage legislation over the past several years, I am proud of the progress we have made towards securing equality for LGBT Marylanders. I am also especially proud of all of you who have worked tirelessly to get us to this point. Many of you have written to me to share your personal stories and I had the opportunity to meet with a number of concerned citizens from Equality Maryland this past Monday to discuss why civil marriage legislation is so important. Should things go as expected this afternoon in the Senate, it will mark a major milestone in the struggle to ensure the rights of LGBT citizens, but it is not the end of the road. I will continue to push and to work with my peers to ensure this legislation passes and equality becomes the law of the land in Maryland. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection act will pass because it is right and because Marylanders are fair-minded people who have, and will continue to, make sure their legislators are as well.
It should be noted that as mentioned in that Baltimore Sun article (referenced above in this essay), the marriage equality bill passed the Senate on Thursday, February 24th.
It should also be noted the other issue Del. McIntosh mentions in her email/website post is redistricting -- there is no mention of HB 235 in that email/website post. When I searched the rest of her website for commentary on Maryland's HB 235, I couldn't find any.
So Del. McIntosh, much like Sen. Madaleno, doesn't have any readily available statements online from past months indicating that she opposed removal of the discrimination ban on public accommodation from HB 235.
In reference to both Sen. Madaleno and Del. McIntosh, there seems to be an apt quote from Martin Luther King Jr.:
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
There are seven LGBT legislators in Maryland, commonly referred to the Maryland LGBT Caucus. The seven LGBT legislators are listed below:
Richard Madaleno - State Senate, District 18 Maggie McIntosh - House of Delegates, District 43
Anne Kaiser - House of Delegates, District 14
Bonnie Cullison - House of Delegates, District 19
Heather Mizeur - House of Delegates, District 20
Mary Washington - House of Delegates, District 43
Luke Clippinger - House of Delegates, District 46
As individuals or as a caucus, I can't find any documentation online that indicates they publicly spoke out against stripping public accommodation from HB 235. And as individuals or as a caucus, I can't find any documentation that indicates they publicly spoke out in support -- let alone in strong support -- of any version of gender identity civil rights legislation this year.
However, there is a press conference scheduled at noon on Tuesday, March 1st in the House Office Building, room 218. This would be the perfect opportunity for Maryland's LGBT Caucus -- our LGBT community's friends -- to as a group state something to this effect:
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.
That's my ask: that's a reasonable request of Maryland's LGBT Caucus. It would be a timely statement because at 1:00 PM EST on Wednesday, March 9th, the House Health and Government Operations Committee is having a hearing on HB 235.
The days of leaving transgender people out of LGBT community civil rights protections should be over, and Maryland's LGBT Caucus should clearly state that on March 1st.
Transgender men and women are out and about in society, and the Diagnostic Statistical Manuel (DSM) is going to be revised to remove the "Disorder" from the Gender Identity diagnosis the next version of the DSM. Permitting legislators to state that transgender people shouldn't receive civil rights protections because they are considered mentally disordered, or permitting others in broader society to state that transgender people shouldn't receive civil rights protections because they are considered mentally disordered, should be met with pushback by LGBT legislators.
The same is true regarding pushing back against the "bathroom bill" meme; same is true regarding pushing back against the "transgender kindergartener teacher" meme.
Whatever reason is given for denying transgender citizens ordinary equality, our LGBT community legislators should pushback against those arguments...those memes. Our LGBT community legislators shouldn't be silent about the need for employment, housing, and public accommodation protections for transgender community members. Real or perceived continued silence on these ordinary equality issues by our LGBT friends would be silence many in the LGBT community will remember.
And too, according to the Gay & Lesbian Task Force's recently released transgender survey:
The sexual orientation of the [survey] sample demonstrates the diverse spectrum of sexual orientations among transgender and gender non-conforming people. Among respondents, 23% reported a lesbian, gay, or same-gender attracted sexual orientation; 24% identified as bisexual; 23% reported a queer/pansexual orientation; 23% reported a heterosexual sexual orientation; 4% describe themselves as asexual; and 2% wrote in other answers.
It's pretty clear that a majority of transgender people also identify as a member of the LGB portion of the LGBT community. As members of a broad, LGBT community with significant overlap between the subcommunities, it's important that we work as a united community for each other...for each other's issues.
And to restate what I stated at the beginning of this essay, it's not like I'm preaching what I haven't personally practiced.
So, my take on this is that the Maryland LGBT Caucus should a statement similar to the one above on March 1st because the current version of the Human Relations - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity - Antidiscrimination bill is set for a committee hearing in the House of Delegates on March 9th. A statement similar to the one above, given by the LGBT Caucus on March 1st, seems to me should be a fairly high priority matter. Sen. Rich Madaleno and Del. Maggie McIntosh need to take the lead on making sure such a statement is made.
To do less would be to watch Maryland's LGBT legislators treat the "T" in LGBT as a small "t." That should be unacceptable to Maryland's LGBT legislative caucus; that should be unacceptable to LGBT community activists as a whole.
~~
By the way, transgender civil rights legislation in Maryland has significance to me beyond just being a national issue for transgender people. 
I have responsibilities and personal business I need to attend to for the next nine months to a year, but I was planning to move near to Washington DC -- but not within the beltway -- when my responsibilities and personal business are taken care of. My reason is simple: I need to be close to where the next LGB, & especially T civil rights battles are going to be waged to put -- hopefully along with GetEQUAL -- direct actions into the arsenal for obtaining LGBT community's freedom, equality, and justice.
The likeliest area I would move to, if I can follow through with my intention to move from San Diego to an area close to Washington DC is Montgomery County, Maryland. (There's a better than 80% chance it'll happen -- it's more of a question of when than if.)
As of right now, my plans -- after hopefully having moved to Maryland -- would be to put the repeated use of the Gender Odyssey Model tactic as a "lunch counter" strategy into application. Others can employ "insider" skills -- my job would be to empower the insiders as someone putting pressure on society and legislators with "outsider," tried and true civil rights tactics and strategy.
I wish I was in Maryland now, but I need to take care of some things before I can move to the area. But as I contemplate and plan a move, I'm keeping in mind a quote about faith from Martin Luther King Jr.:
Faith is taking the first step, even when you don't see the whole staircase.
I couldn't believe more strongly that there must be flights of steps one can take to win freedom, equality, and justice for LGBT community as a whole, and especially for my subcommunity of the LGBT community. I will in faith take what I see as the necessary personal steps to achieve freedom, equality, and justice for my community siblings.
~~~~~
Related:
* 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
.
Family Research Council pulling the 'gay = promiscuous pedophiles' card to defend DOMA
crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
Audacity is always rooted in what someone feels he or she can get away with.
In other words, if no one calls you out for lying then you are mostly likely going to do it again.
It's helpful to keep this in mind while perusing a Family Research Council's website directed solely at Defending DOMA.
One has to hand it to the organization for not letting a moment - in this case, the Justice Department saying that it will no longer defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in court cases - go by without using it as an opportunity to fund raise.
But in attacking the decision not to defend DOMA - and gay marriage in general - FRC uses the page to push incredibly ridiculous arguments having nothing to do with gay marriage.
And when it does attack gay marriage head in, the organization uses tactics which led to its being called out several times in the past (most recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center) for deliberately passing along awful anti-gay propaganda and distorting legitimate science to quantify this propaganda.
Two sections of the webpage (Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage, and Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?) are rife with deception.
For today, let's look at Q&A: What's Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?
A following passage in this piece is a perfect example of the low road FRC has chosen to travel in order to defend DOMA:
Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?
Homosexual men are far more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. The evidence for this lies in the findings that:
· Almost all child sexual abuse is committed by men; and · Less than three percent of American men identify themselves as homosexual; yet· Nearly a third of all cases of child sexual abuse are homosexual in nature (that is, they involve men molesting boys). This is a rate of homosexual child abuse about ten times higher than one would expect based on the first two facts.
These figures are essentially undisputed. However, pro-homosexual activists seek to explain them away by claiming that men who molest boys are not usually homosexual in their adult sexual orientation. Yet a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that "86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).
This does not mean that all, or even most, homosexual men are child molesters--but it does prove that homosexuality is a significant risk factor for this horrible crime.
That's right. FRC is pulling the homosexuality = pedophilia lie and distorting legitimate work prove this point.
According to the religious right watchdog site Box Turtle Bulletin :
The study, “Behavior patterns of child molesters” by W.D. Erickson, N.H. Walbek, and R.K. Seely which appeared more than twenty years ago (1988, to be exact), didn’t set out to determine the sexual orientation of child molesters. The study, of 229 convicted child molesters in Minnesota, (which, by the way, was never intended to be nationally representative in any way) was focused on the types of sexual contact the men engaged in with their victims — vaginal or anal penetration, oral contact, and so forth. In this particular sample, 63 victims were male, and 166 victims were female. But the ”finding” . . . is encapsulated in just one sentence: “Eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
Also, according to Box Turtle Bulletin, the authors of the study never made the claim that that 86% of men who abused children -- without regard to gender -- said they were gay or bisexual.
This is not the first time FRC distorted the Erickson study. Last year, FRC head Tony Perkins cited it on MSNBC's Hardball as proof that the organization was not unfairly linking homosexuality to pedophilia.
However, more credible sources, i.e. the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America, all say that gay men are not more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.
But I guess according to FRC, all of these organizations have been "infiltrated" by the gay community.
FRC should really know better than to link pedophilia to homosexuality seeing that it got the organization into trouble in the past.
In 1992, A. Nicholas Groth, former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, complained that his work was being distorted by a member of FRC, Timothy Dailey, to quantify this theory. His letter to Dailey reads in part:
If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males. Your statement that "the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners" appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male's sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.
Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.
And the homoexuality = pedophilia lie isn't the only distortion that FRC is pushing in Q&A What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry.
The organization is also making the claim that gay men are not monogamous and therefore cannot handle the concept of marriage:
Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize "marriage" for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of "steady partnerships" was not more than 2 years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).
It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that Xiridou's study cannot be used to gauge a correct interpretation of gay marriage.
Her study did not look at gay marriage but was designed to "access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy."
For this study, Dr. Xiridou received her information from the Amsterdam Cohort Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and AIDS Among Homosexual Men. To gain this information, researchers studied 1,800 gay men between the years of 1984- 2000.
Same sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands in 2001, thus making the information irrelevant to points about gay marriage. Information for the Amsterdam Cohort Study is found here.
Furthermore, lesbians were not included in the study. FRC's other proof of the supposed promiscuity of gay married men is a National Health and Social Life Survey published in 1994.
But the most baffling passage in FRC's piece is the following:
For more information on the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior, see the following publications by the Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Marriage and Family Studies, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey:
· Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003); order online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BK03F01
· "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse," Insight No. 247 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), May 17, 2002 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3)
· "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality," Insight No. 232 (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), March 6, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1)
· "Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk," Insight No. 238 (Washington: Family Research Council) November 1, 2001 (online at: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3)
Here is the thing though. If you click on those links, you won't find any of the work. In 2008, the Family Research Council actually removed those studies from its webpage claiming that they used "outdated source."
The entire piece in general reeks of desperation. FRC even has the nerve to even cite the "gay men are inflicted with gay bowel syndrome" lie. "Gay bowel syndrome" is an archaic medical term which no physician uses anymore.
Does FRC really want someone to defend DOMA in court with this mess?
The organization probably does because short of SPLC and a few intrepid bloggers (myself included) very few have yet to call the organization out for its continued pushing of propaganda and distortion of legitimate scientific work.
This means that they are able to continue pushing this nonsense. FRC head Tony Perkins is able to appear on news programs like Fox and in publications such as the Daily Caller where he freely repeats this propaganda. And FRC spokesman Tony Perkins is freely able to repeat the same propaganda unchallenged in front of state legislative bodies.
It shouldn't be any surprise that FRC creates a website repeating the same propaganda. No one really challenges them on it.
And don't be surprised if you hear these lies repeated by a Congressman like Mike Pence or a presidential candidate like Mike Huckabee. Or even in court should a defense of DOMA be taken up by Congress, FRC, or any other so-called "pro-family" organization.
The media won't challenge these lies. And in all fairness and honesty, the lead lgbt organizations don't. So why those who repeat them (i.e. FRC, etc.) fear being called out?
No one has the audacity to challenge their audacity.
Tomorrow I will talk about FRC's Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage, showcasing the same pattern of distortion.
February 27, 2011
Open thread/Oscars chat
Serving up Sunday Blend this and that
* It's Oscar night. Who's watching? If you all want a chat room open for gabbing, let me know in the comments. In the meantime, absorb a little wisdom from 40 films in 7 minutes...
* The G.O.P.'s Abandoned Babies - NY Times Op-Ed by Charles Blow. Womb controllers, pls give reality-based response to this. BTW, Peter LaBarbera Tweeted: "Pam havent read this yet, but shouldn't 1st concern B w/ babies surviving, then qual of life? #Abortion ends the life!"
Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children's welfare. They can't be "pro-life" when the "child" is in the womb but indifferent when it's in the world...It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted - and in some cases dangerous - pregnancies for the sake of "unborn children," then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?* MetroWeekly's Chris Geidner makes history at the White House Feb 25, 2011
* Outserve posts DADT repeal implementation Army Training Materials.
* Trans rights under attack in Maine: Bangor Daily Herald - Bill would overturn ruling on transgender use of bathrooms.
The bill would add a paragraph to the Maine Human Rights Act that would make it legal to designate a bathroom or shower facility "to the use of members of the designated physiological sex, regardless of sexual orientation," according to a draft provided by [Rep. Kenneth] Fredette.* Boy stuck 2 years in Ukraine arrives in Belgium . Legally married Belgian men end legal battle to bring their son home.
* Teabaggers trying to foist an anti-evolution bill onto Tennessee.
Senate Bill 893 (PDF), filed in the Tennessee Senate on February 16, 2011, is the seventh antievolution bill introduced in a state legislature in 2011, and the second introduced in Tennessee. The bill would, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."Rod 2.0: " Eddie Long Begins "Late Night Men's Prayer Meetings ". http://goo.gl/MBRz5 Rod: "How many inches, er, "men" RU seeking, bishop?"
* Film Screening and Panel Discussion to address needs and challenges facing LGBT elders. On April 2, UNC's School of Social Work will host Breaking Generation Silent: Facing the needs and challenges of LGBT elders. This FREE event, which is being held at UNC's William and Ida Friday Center in Chapel Hill, kicks off at 1 p.m. with a viewing of "Gen Silent." This 1-hour documentary highlights the realities that many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender seniors are facing: the need to go back into the closet to avoid discrimination from aging providers and bullying from fellow seniors in long-term care settings. A panel discussion will follow the film screening to further explore the social, medical and financial needs of LGBT elders. Among the panelists will be:
? Mandy Carter, a co-founder of the National Black Justice Coalition, a civil rights organization for black LGBT individuals and their allies dedicated to fostering equality by fighting racism and homophobia. Carter is on the Advisory Board of SAGE, the nation's largest and oldest advocacy group for LGBT elders, and has helped support training for North Carolina's Area Agencies on Aging via the North Carolina chapter of the AARP.? Debi Lee, the lead regional ombudsman for the Centralina Area Agency on Aging. Lee hosts the "Gay and Gray" program for Charlotte's Lesbian & Gay Community Center.
? Dee Leahman, director for Community Partnership for End of Life Care, a program of Hospice & Palliative CareCenter in Winston-Salem. Leahman has worked closely with LGBT families on end-of-life issues.
Pam Spaulding's Blog
- Pam Spaulding's profile
- 1 follower
