Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 87

LGBT Black History - Answers the questions and see how much you know

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

How many of these questions regarding lgbt Black History can you answer correctly? The answers will be posted at a later time:

1. What female poet is known for the phrase “your silence will not protect you.”

2. He was an aid to Dr. King and organized the 1963 March on Washington.

3. In 1972, he was the first gay man to be nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in for the movie Sounder.

4. She was the first lesbian of color elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where she electrified the country during Nixon’s impeachment hearings.

5. He is the first openly gay African-American gospel singer.

6. She won a Tony and an Emmy for the Broadway musical “Ain’t Misbehavin’” and was the star of her own situation comedy.

7. This playwright wrote A Raisin in the Sun.

8. This former employee of the Clinton Administration wrote One More River to Cross.

9. This blues legend fronted the group “The Assassinators of the Blues.”

10. This Tuskegee scientist is known more for his experiments with sweet potatoes and peanuts than his rumored relationship with lab assistant Austin Curtis, Jr.

11. What early August Wilson play featured a relationship between a famous blues singer and her girlfriend?

12. This documentary focused on the ball scene in New York during the late 80s.

13. She is the author of the novel Push, which was made into the motion picture Precious.

14. He is the first and only African-American gay man to receive an Oscar nomination for Best Director.

15. He wrote The Fire Next Time and Blues for Mister Charlie.

16. This scholar was fired by then Governor of California Ronald Reagan due to her affiliation with the Communist Party.

17. What leader of the Black Panther Party gave a speech of solidarity to the gay rights movement in 1970?

18. He is presently a theologian at Harvard University’s Divinity School and authored The Good Book.

19. She wrote the book Hiding My Candy.

20. She has won three Olympic gold medals as well as three WNBA MVP awards.

21. This singer has sung such hits as “Chance Are” and “Misty.”

22. She has been called the “Empress of the Blues” and was the subject of a false story that she died because she was not admitted to a white hospital after a car crash.

23. He authored such books as Invisible Life and This Too Shall Pass.

24. She is considered a legend in France due to her mystique and dancing performances wearing nothing more than a skirt of artificial bananas.

25. Her novel, The Color Purple, received the Pulitzer Prize and is the subject of a successful movie and Broadway play.

26. This cultural movement took place in New York between 1920s and 30s and featured such artists as Josephine Baker, Langston Hughes, and Countee Cullen.

27. This legendary rock and roll singer’s hits include "Long Tall Sally" and "Tootie Fruitie."

28. She is presently the only openly gay African-American federal judge. She serves in the Southern District of New York.

29. She originally recorded the Elvis Presley hit, “Hound Dog.”

30. She was a performer during the Harlem Renaissance who dressed in men’s clothing while performing.

31. He was the first openly gay Major League Baseball player.

32. This gospel singer was known as “Little Ax” and at the time of his death was discovered to be anatomically female.

33. He was one of the first soldiers to have success challenging the then Armed Forces ban on lgbts.

34. He was one of the defendants in the case Lawrence vs. Texas, which overturned the country’s anti-sodomy laws.

35. He formed his own dance theatre in 1958 and helped to popularize modern dance.

Transgender Law Center & EQCA: Gender Non-Discrimination Act Introduced In California

This is an example of what lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community activism -- that is fully inclusive of the T in LGBT -- looks like. From the Transgender Law Center press release Gender Non-Discrimination Act Introduced to California Assembly:

Assemblymember Atkins Introduces Bill Strengthening Employment, Housing, and other Nondiscrimination Laws

AB 887, sponsored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center, would amend existing state laws to explicitly enumerate protections based on gender identity and gender expression

Sacramento - Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) introduced the Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) sponsored by Equality California and the Transgender Law Center. AB 887 seeks to strengthen employment, housing, and other civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

"California's non-discrimination laws guarantee equal protection under the law for all people," said Atkins. "It is critically important for employers, housing authorities, and everyone to have clear guidance on how these protections are implemented."

AB 887 takes existing protections based on gender identity and expression and enumerates them as protected categories in non-discrimination laws. In addition, the bill clarifies that gender identity and expression are included in the definition of gender and sex in all California codes.

"Existing non-discrimination laws are confusing and vague for employers, housing authorities and others who bear the responsibility of ensuring that the laws are enforced," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. "This bill would reduce the harms caused by discrimination by inserting language into state law that is direct and easily understood. In addition, by being clear about what the law requires, it will reduce litigation and costs to employers, landlords, and others."

California non-discrimination laws already define "gender" to include a person's gender identity (how they see themselves) and gender expression (how other people see them). AB 887 specifically enumerates gender identity and gender expression in order to simplify compliance with existing legal protections.

"The discrimination that transgender people face is life threatening," said Masen Davis, Executive Director of the Transgender Law Center. "It affects our physical and economic security by denying us opportunities in everything from basic housing to gainful employment. The Gender Nondiscrimination Act would make California's non-discrimination laws clearer and stronger."

In 2009, the Transgender Law Center released its State of Transgender California report. The report revealed overwhelmingly that Californians who experience discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression at work or elsewhere often times do not file complaints because they are unaware that they are protected as a result of confusing non-discrimination laws.  

More than 100 cities across America and hundreds of employers already provide clear non-discrimination protections based on gender identity and gender expression. Cities that list them as separate protected categories in non-discrimination ordinances include Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Oakland and West Hollywood.

The Transgender Law Center is a civil rights organization advocating for transgender communities. The Transgender Law Center uses direct legal services, education, community organizing and advocacy to transform California into a state that recognizes and supports the needs of transgender people and their families.www.transgenderlawcenter.org

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org

By the way, Toni Atkins is the former city councilwoman for the San Diego City Council district that I live in, and she's currently my California State Assemblywoman. Kinda makes me proud to live in her district.

ENDA: The LGBT Community Has Ceded The "Bathroom Bill" Argument Without A Fight

It seems that whenever a civil rights movement has been fought in the United States, the battles have included public restrooms. From the segregated restrooms of the Jim Crow south, to the "unisex bathroom" arguments used in the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), to even the repeal legislation for Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) -- where Elaine Donnelly and her Center For Military Readiness warned about the dangers of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in bathrooms and showers -- the public restroom has been used as an essential feature for pushback against civil rights and ordinary equality.

When it comes to transgender people and the issues of antidiscrimination protections for employment and housing, as well as for the issue of antidiscrimination protections with regards to public accommodation, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community has ceded the ground on social conservatives' and the religious right's arguments of "men in dresses" using women's public restrooms -- their argument that has been shortened to "bathroom bill."

We, as a broad community, have apparently given up on battling the "bathroom bill" meme; we in LGBT community ceded the battlespace on public restrooms.

I believe we didn't lose the "bathroom bill" argument; I believe we've never fought the against the "bathroom bill" meme like it needs to be fought against.

The key points to battling the "bathroom bill" argument by social conservatives/those on the religious right are this:

• The "bathroom bill" argument is an argument that assumes transgender women are really men, and that men are predators in women's restrooms.

• *fill in the blank social conservative/religious right organization/elected "enemy" politician* has not presented even one case of a transgender woman -- someone [he/she/they] identify as a "man in a dress" -- in a public restroom room engaging in predatory behavior.

• For the *fill in the blank* "bathroom bill" argument to be anything but fear mongering, *fill in the blank* needs to show a.) bathroom predation by transgender women is occurring frequently in public bathrooms, and b.) if point "a.)" were actually true, then   *fill in the blank* would additionally need to prove that alleged bathroom predation occurs more frequently in states and localities that have antidiscrimination laws for transgender people than in states and localities without antidiscrimination laws for transgender people.

And then it needs to be followed up with some pithy summarizing statement, in the vein of:

When it comes to this "bathroom" bill" argument, this *fill in the blank* doesn't need to "show us the money," but instead [he/she/they] do need to "show us the bathroom predation" that they allege occurs.

And, you can't send that message by a press release -- to work it would need direct action.

An example of what kind of a direct action would be the one used by transgender people who attended Seattle's transgender conference Gender Odyssey in a 2007 protest against the Pacific Place Mall (also documented in the Seattle Times' Mall-Restroom Evictions Raise Transgender Ire):

Essentially, two female-to-male, transgender men were humiliated in a mall restroom one day, and then on the next day the Gender Odyssey attendees held sit-ins in the mall's restrooms to change the mall policy. In the end, the strategy worked.

[Below the fold: more on the Gender Odyssey Model strategy.]
So I'd call this bathroom antidiscrimination model the "Gender Odyssey Model." In my add to that basic model, there'd be a sit-in spokesperson would rattle off talking points and one-line summary regarding transgender people's use of public restrooms.

Which restrooms that group of activists target would be really important. My choice of targets these sit-ins -- in this order --  would be:

• LGBT civil rights non-profits who aren't making the argument for public accommodations for transgender people. We need our friends to be our friends.

• The headquarters' restrooms of the social conservative/religious right organizations' that are making "bathroom bill" arguments.

• Elected politicians' office bathrooms -- such as Senators', Congressmembers', and State Legislators' office bathrooms.

The "ask" for LGBT civil rights non-profits would have to be modified from the demands made of social conservative/religious right organizations, but the principle of challenging "bathroom bill" arguments would be in the same vein. So the "ask," after rattling off anti-"bathroom bill" talking points, would be a demand-infused message delivered from an organization's or elected politician's office bathroom. The summary message would be something to the effect of:

• For Social conservative/religious right organizations and "enemy" elected politicians, a third person summary: "...they need to 'show us the bathroom predation' that that they allege occurs, or they're going to need to have us dragged away to jail."

• For LGBT civil rights non-profits and "friendly" elected politicians, a first person summary: "Transgender people and allies do not accept that we can't fight the 'bathroom bill' meme, and we fully expect you to participate in putting up a fight against it. And too, we're not going to let you use your office bathrooms until you agree to put up a fight -- with full resolve -- against the "bathroom bill" meme, and put up a fight for antidiscrimination laws, public accommodation laws, and equality laws for transgender people. Your only other option here is to have us dragged away to jail."

These sit-ins -- preferably accomplished by both transgender people and their LGBT community allies -- would be by necessity direct actions that could (and often would) end in arrest of the participants.

There is a big problem with this model though: Very few in the LGBT community today take their own freedom, equality, and justice as seriously as suffragists, black civil rights movement activists, and feminist activists did. We in LGBT community, as a group, seem unwilling to sacrifice for our own civil rights anymore; as a community, we've apparently lost the burning desire for civil rights of Martin Luther King Jr.:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

And...

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

As well as the exhortation on direct action by Cesar Chavez:

"...there has to be someone who is willing to do it, who is willing to take whatever risks are required. I don't think it can be done with money alone. The person has to be dedicated to the task. There has to be some other motivation."

We, even within the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community, haven't been "willing to take whatever risks are required." It really all boils down to what suffragist Alice Paul said about equality issues:

I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction. Most reforms, most problems are complicated. But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.

That's what transgender people in the LGBT community are fighting for: ordinary equality. We in LGBT community need to commit to ordinary equality to a level we haven't done in awhile. The "bathroom bill" meme is working against ordinary equality -- not only against the ordinary equality of transgender people, but against the ordinary equality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as well -- and as I said previously it's working because we in LGBT community have ceded the battlespace.

Transgender community members -- as well as broader LGBT community's members -- have a moderate, equal rights agenda. What we apparently need to combat the forces that oppose us as we fight for our moderate equal rights agenda are people committed to radical strategies and tactics. If we don't again embrace radical strategies and tactics as civil rights activists have in the past, I believe we tacitly accept the inequities many of we LGBT community members endure.

We in LGBT community need to stop thinking in tiny boxes, and stop ceding battlespace -- and I'm unequivocally stating that one example before us of ceded battlespace is transgender people's public restroom use...we have ceded to the "bathroom bill" meme.

Strategically and tactically, we need to start thinking in terms of something akin to the Gender Odyssey Model for combating the "bathroom bill" meme. If we don't, we'll have the next generations of LGB and T people to answer to for our failures to secure fully inclusive, ordinary equality.

~~~~~

Related:

* ENDA: An 800-Pound Transgender Elephant - With Issues - In The Room

* Guest column by Kerry Eleveld - The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality

.

T minus 100 days till the Rapture!

[image error]This is a Pam's House Blend public service announcement: Judgment Day is just 100 days away!  Recall that according to Mr. Harold Camping, gay pride and marriage equality are God's promissory note for The Rapture.  Payment in full expected on May 21st!

Speaking of payment, despite the imminent destruction of the Earth there's still plenty of time to set up your recurring donation to Mr. Camping.  Be sure to max out your monthly donation because heck, you're not going to be here to get the bill.  And surly Mr. Camping will cancel your recurring donation on May 22nd should he be wrong (again) about the date of the first Day of Judgment.  Why, he's so honest that I bet he'd reimburse all donations solicited on the misplaced promise of May 21st and leveraged with homophobic smears.  Won't you Mr. Camping?

Related:

God created marriage equality to signal Judgment Day on May 21, 2011

Amber Yust Suing California DMV -- And DMV Ex-Employee Thomas Demartini

Remember Amber Yust? She was the 23-year-old trans woman who was sent a letter by a California DMV employee telling her she "made a very evil decision" to transition, and condemned her to hell.

Before sending that letter to Amber's home, the now ex-employee of the DMV -- Thomas Demartini -- apparently used agency records to find her address. DMV employees aren't supposed to use agency records to find customer addresses for personal use; DMV employees aren't supposed to use agency data to contact customers for unofficial purposes.

Demartini was allowed to resign from the DMV last December.

Well now, both the California DMV and Thomas Demartini are being sued by Amber Yust. From the San Francisco Chronicle's Transgender woman sues DMV over clerk's letter:

A transgender woman who received a personal letter at home from a California Department of Motor Vehicles clerk who helped her obtain a new driver's license is suing the DMV and its now ex-employee.

San Francisco resident Amber Yust filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking compensatory and other damages for the invasion of privacy and emotional distress she says she suffered when she received the letter calling her gender change a "very evil decision."

I'm glad Amber is standing up for herself, as well as for other trans people in California -- this is a case I'd so love to see Amber win.

~~~~~

Related:

* CNN: DMV Employee Resigns Over Letter Condemning Customer To Hell

* Transphobia As An Apparent Government Function

* California DMV Employee Tells Trans Woman In Letter She's Made A 'Very Evil Decision'

When Will Conservative Christians Relent On The Gays?

Found on God Hates Protesters.

Tom Krattenmaker has a piece up on USA Today where he asks what conservative Christians should do: "On gay rights, keep fighting or adapt?"

You get the sense, observing the shifting cultural landscape, that we've reached a point on gay rights that is similar to that moment in a football game, or an election, or a relationship, when you know it's over even though it's not over.

It appears increasingly obvious that social acceptance of gay men and lesbians and insistence on their equal rights are inexorable.

It certainly looked over for Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage and her financial benefactors from the Mormon and Catholic Churches in New Hampshire and Maryland this week.

But would the conservative Christian industry ever willingly euthanize the goose laying the golden eggs?

Cross-posted to The Daily Kos. Please rec if you can.
I don't know much about the author. His USA Today biography says:

Tom Krattenmaker, a writer specializing in religion in public life, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. He is the author of the award-winning book Onward Christian Athletes.

I notice it was cross posted to the Huffington Post. That he's even bothering to ask the question and attempts to engage the HuffPost audience is excellent evidence he's significantly to the political left of the groups he's discussing. Also, a little more "reality based."

As evidence of the changing tides, Krattenmaker cites the passage of a bill that would allow "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal and Exodus International's decision to pull out of an anti-gay "Day of Truth" events. Also the Conservative Christians went down in a dust-up over a homophobic Apple iPhone app. The times they are a-changing.

Add it up, and you see a decision point at hand for socially conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council that have led resistance to gay rights. Do they fight to the last ditch, continue shouting the anti-gay rhetoric that rings false and mean to the many Americans who live and work with gay people, or who themselves are gay? Or do they soften their tone and turn their attention to other fronts?

That Krattenmaker singles out Family Research Council as a leader of such anti-gay initiatives, I find interesting. First, because I had no idea they had creditability in any quarters (half-snark). Secondly, I have no faith they are a group that might be at all inclined to give up the ghost on this fight.

But FRC is the belly of the beast. And they certainly are afforded too much creditability to comment on secular legislative matters. FRC's Tony Perkins was an ubiquitous face on the TV machine concern trolling the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the last year. Family Research Council's inclusion in Southern Poverty Law Center's anti-gay hate groups seems to have little effect on the enthusiasm of the media to book this organization ("for balance"), or move them to provide relevant context, like their financial support for the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill.

Krattenmaker goes on to call their battle "quixotic" and suggests that sallying forth will do more to discredit them than it will to win the day. Indeed, we're seeing functioning reality of this when it was marriage equality opponents that did more to convince an opposed Maryland State Senator to support gay marriage than the arguments of the proponents.

It is also fair to say opponents of marriage equality in New Hampshire this week looked rather foolish discussing that marriage equality is an inevitable slippery slope to Sharia Law, and their sneering disregard for the Democratic principles of governing to the obvious will of the people.

But how can conservative Christians lay down their arms? How to exit a fight you've entered because you said you were following God's unerring word? Krattenmaker suggests:

In explaining its withdrawal from the "Day of Truth," Exodus International outlines a smart way forward for conservative Christian groups - one that does not require that they sacrifice their core beliefs. Note that Alan Chambers did not announce a change in his organization's philosophy that people can be saved from homosexuality through faith in Christ. What he did signal, though, was a change in tone and emphasis, and in doing so he invoked a foundational Christian principle: Treat others as you wish to be treated.

That is a tenet we can all agree on. That's why they call it the Golden Rule. As disgusted as I am with these regressive forces that dehumanize me as a gay man, I can't honestly say I have it in me to treat them as they have treated me. I would never deny these people the right to marry whoever they wish, or fired them for being straight or a fundamentalist Christian. I hope they'll come to see that's all we ask in return.

He also has a warning to his audience:

Conservative Christian leaders ought to be very careful about their rhetoric going forward - careful not to continue giving the impression that being Christian is in large measure about opposing gay rights, and careful not to let the public expression of their faith become primarily associated with something that looks, sounds and feels like hate to growing segments of the population.

It's a thoughtful piece, I suggest people with a theological investment check it out, it's here.

But Krattenmaker is a man of faith, and when he poses the question: "On gay rights, keep fighting or adapt?" he addresses it as though theology and changing sociological attitudes were the only factor.

He completely fails to address the financial motives that drive fundamentalist Christians to demonize and hate gays. Is he not aware of them? Is he naive enough to be blind to it? Or would it be "impolite" to bring up the subject of money to Tony Perkins? Regardless, as an insider, he'd do well to recognize that until that community acknowledges reality they can never get at the heart of the problem. It's rather like examining a person's toes to find the source of a toothache.

Because theology isn't the only reason these groups fight the gays. And in fact, it's probably the least of the reasons. There's big business in it. A large part of their business model is built on ginning up fear, hatred and outrage about the gay agenda, and then of course, asking the hateful and ignorant for funds to help stop it. They are in the fortunate position to be able to manufacture a market for the very product they are selling.

Southern Poverty Law Center extensively documents anti-gay rhetoric coming from 18 anti-gay hate groups. The 18 groups, without exception, rely on Christian scripture as the basis of their authority. Much of SPLC's research evidence of their hatred is clipped from echo-chamber of fundraising letters. Like this one from the American Family Association:

AFA's direct-mail appeals are particularly shrill. "For the sake of our children and society, we must OPPOSE the spread of homosexual activity! Just as we must oppose murder, stealing, and adultery!" says one such recent fundraising letter. "Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, the only way for them to 'breed' is to RECRUIT! And who are their targets for recruitment? Children!"

Who will they demonize if not the gays? In this way, Krattenmaker failed to acknowledge that the problem is not only that their rhetoric sounds hateful, it often actually is hateful.

And how will they get attention if not by going on the TV machine fight LGBT legislative and judicial movement? Perkins and his ilk get more media airtime fighting gay rights than any other topic, by far. It may be painful for these groups to relinquish the outsized attention they get by fighting gays. I suspect Perkins' phone rarely rings from CNN, MSNBC or Fox News except when they need to find someone to "balance" out opinions on gay rights stories.

They are now in greater demand than ever, as producer's rolodexes get thinner. Fewer people are willing to speak out publicly against the LGBT community's demands for equal treatment under the law. More than a dozen State Senators proudly took to the New York Senate floor to stump for their colleagues to vote for marriage equality last June. Senator and Reverend Ruben Diaz was the lonely voice of public opposition (Granted, he had too much company that sought to avoid spotlighting their opposition by voting for inequality under the cover of public silence.)

But no one provides the "good TV" soundbites these Christian Conservatives provide. The average LGBT blockader saying, "I'm committed to equality, and am thinking of the bill, but I'm not sure the time is right, we'll see," doesn't exactly make for most riveting TV segment.

And in this way, Maggie Gallagher wins, even when she loses. Sure, Maryland may pass marriage equality anyway, despite her appearance before the Senate to argue against it. And we may scuttle the effort to repeal equality in New Hampshire. But she now has something to report back to her fans and followers. She went and fought the good fight. She got an audience with the decision makers, even in a state she doesn't reside! She's a real player! She could really stop gay marriage next time, if you just open up your wallet and give more. Please give more.

From this perspective, it seems unlikely they'll be willing to give up the money-making potential that the continued oppression of gay people gives them. Until societal attitudes sufficiently change to make them no longer fiscally viable. But, I'd say Maggie and Tony are safe in this lifetime.

After all, nearly 40 years after Roe v. Wade settled the abortion question, abortion rights remains a significant cash-cow for many people.

Who would join me in opening a can of whoop-ass on this animal cruelty cretin?

As a pet lover and pit bull advocate, an animal cruelty story like this is so enraging I don't know what I would do if I came face to face with this piece of human garbage.

Eight-pound Chihuahua bashed to death by 265-pound Queens brute: cops

A 265-pound Queens man was arrested by the ASPCA Friday for fatally beating his 8-pound Chihuahua.

The tiny pooch, named Spotye, was so severely injured he had to be euthanized.

Jerry Melendez, 33, was charged with felony animal cruelty after ASPCA investigators determined the pup suffered a fractured skull caused by blunt force impact and a hemorrhage in his left eye.

A necropsy also showed the dog had blood in his abdominal cavity.

Every once in a while, some low-lifes get what they deserve.

For the neighbors, the worst part about the beatings was when they ended. Blueberry, a brown and white pit bull, would lie his bloody frame on the apartment balcony, his head against the metal bars, and shiver.

"It was so awful. ... It was never a case of should we do something, it was how," said Steelee Faltis, 32, an Oakland artist. "Talking to the dog's owner didn't work. But we knew that no one could argue with a video."

Finally, on Feb. 19, 2010, they got it: a high-quality video of their neighbor, Charles Black, striking Blueberry repeatedly with an ax handle raised high over his head. In the film, the dog emits harrowing squeals and cries as it cowers against the blows.

That video led to Black's conviction in January for felony animal cruelty, resulting in a four-year prison sentence.

The sad thing is you can find countless reports of human behavior toward dogs, cats and other domestic animals, bred to be our companions. The level of pathology it takes to be so violent, neglectful and amoral toward a pet you've chosen to taken into your own home boggles the mind.

***

My Pit Pick of the Week

Speaking of pits, the Animal Protection Society of Durham is featuring a wonderful little guy, Oscar, a 4-5 month old who loves his toys and is great with other puppies. He needs an active home where he'll have lots of love, attention, good exercise and basic training.

Puppy Trainer Jane Marshall:

"Oscar came to his first puppy class on Thursday, and fit right in immediately! He's a very friendly, easygoing puppy, both with people and other dogs. He had a romp around the room with Barnabas, who is a similar size, then we put him with the smaller puppies. He was very gentle and playful with them, sharing the toys nicely.

Because of his good skills with puppies, he has been promoted to "Ambassador for the Breed", a title we give to our best pit bull and pit mix puppies. (Barnabas and Caitlin have the same title) He learned "sit" in his first session and is ready to learn more. I cannot say enough nice things about this puppy - he will be a wonderful family pet!"

The Cold Heart of a Craven, Careless, Professional, Paid Propagandist

Maggie Gallagher, front woman for National Organization for Marriage, trying desperately to spin the disastrous showing marriage equality opponents had at Thursday's legislative hearing in New Hampshire, posted an interesting talking point she seemed to think had value to her organization's blog. Praising her compatriot in bigotry, Kevin Smith from Cornerstone Action PAC, who is like her, a professional homophobe that collects a salary to testify against the equal rights of gay people, Maggie says:

My favorite Kevin Smith line: "The sky didn't fall in 2008 when the voters repealed same-sex marriage. The sky didn't fall in Maine either the next year in 2009, when the voters repealed gay marriage passed by the legislature."

Let's look at what she's really saying there.
Maggie Gallagher and her crew are saying, "Hey, it's not such a big deal. Just go ahead and do it. They did it elsewhere."

She's suggesting lawmakers ignore the will of the people. Ignore the WMUR/Granite State poll, that show 62% of New Hampshire residents have no desire to see this repealed in favor of the 29% who do. University of New Hampshire pollster Andrew Smith, who directs the UNH Survey Center, called it more than opposition but rather "powerful resistance."

Let's look at how the breaks down by intensity:

Clearly not only the numbers, but the passions lie in defending New Hampshire's marriage equality.

And this was demonstrated very clearly in Thursday's hearing.

In droves, supporters took time out of their day to discuss the humanity of the people these repeal bills would hurt. They spoke for themselves, their partners, their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents. Maggie's group is imploring legislators to ignore it all, because, well, they'll get over it.

Ignore Paul Ober (left) who bravely came out of the closet to his friends and his hockey team to testify, because he said, "this is too important." Ignore Craig Stowell who stood up for his brother, and said, "no one has the right to take away his freedom to marry." Ignore Linda Maloney who stood up for her daughter saying, "when I found out from Courage Campaign that NOM, the so-called 'National Organization for Marriage,' was trying to take that right away from my Cait, I couldn't stand by and do nothing."

Maggie's saying to lawmakers, "Everything you saw Thursday, ignore it." Ignore these 600+ people who took time out of their day to come and testify, to plead with the lawmakers on behalf of equality, respect and simple common decency. The pictures told an amazing story, I provided many here. For the more empirically inclined, here's a look at how the turnout for the day breaks down:

"Let's ignore unprecedentedly lopsided turnout." If the will to repeal exists in the the Granite State, there was scarce evidence of it Thursday. But hundreds and hundreds of people did take the time out of their day to come and testify, to plead, demand and argue their case before the lawmakers.

"But ignore all that," says Maggie, because "they'll all get over it."

As one poster put it succinctly at Prop 8 Trial Tracker:

Please note that the sky didn't fall the day that your Jesus was supposedly killed. It didn't fall the day Eve got a craving for fruit. The sky has NEVER fallen down, no matter what horrendous or marvelous things have been done underneath it.

What DID happen on the days you mention is that hearts were broken, families were punished, children were harmed, love was judged unimportant, people were relegated to second class citizenship...

But the broken hearts of gay people and their families are of no consequence to Mrs. Gallagher. If you can stomach it, here's Maggie's testimony on video.

Note she says:

"It is not discrimination to treat different things, differently."

The subject on the table is not the sorting of one "thing" from another. The sorting is that of people. And treating different people differently is a pretty good working description of "discrimination" as we understand it.

There are Freudian slips, and then there are Freudian slips. For Maggie, I consider this a doozy. This is where we see what a cold and heartless person she is at her very core. Maggie views gays not as people, but mere "things." The dehumanization of gay people is time-honored tactic of the anti-gay crowd that makes up the base of Maggie's support.

Looking very closely at the underbelly of Maggie's supporters is, in fact, recommended. Maryland State Senator James Brochin, who previously opposed marriage equality took in Maggie and her supporter's testimony and said:

"What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling. Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another. The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

This is more than a tactic to this mob--without whom NOM would cease to exist--it is a firmly held world view. Gays are not humans, but monsters, who molest children and live lives of depravity and disease, and we'd all be better off if they were jailed, or executed. Proudly held by one of the few souls that turned out for a National Organization for Marriage rally held this summer:

The expression of these world views have been documented extensively by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And NOM's gleeful distribution of lies and slander about LGBT Americans earned them a spot on SPLC's list of 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda.

Legislators would be wise to understand whose counsel they are considering, what their history is and the dangerous and potentially expensive consequences of listening to them.

This fall, NOM meddled in Iowa's Supreme Court elections with feckless regard for the collateral damage to the judiciary there, ousting the three Justices for affirming LGBT rights. The effect for every Iowan when National Organization for Marriage selects their Justices for them may well be disastrous for years to come on a host of rulings.

Maggie herself has a very sordid past as a unethical propagandist, having shamelessly collected a paycheck from the Bush administration to write allegedly "objective" journalism pieces in her syndicated newspaper column on Bush policies. Her conscience apparently felt there was no conflict of interest there or cause to disclose the sources of her dual incomes.

Now, Maggie draws a good paycheck from National Organization for Marriage's multi-million dollar war chest, swooping from state to state testifying against the equal protection of LGBT Americans. She can never provide a compelling reason why this is such an imperative, beyond "it's always been this way." Which at one point, was a pretty compelling argument to deny women voting rights, or African Americans their basic freedom. Or, ironically, her right to marry her Hindu-practicing East Indian husband.

But, even as she can find time in her schedule to attend hearings to lobby lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maryland and Rhode Island, when it was time to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to present hard evidence, not slurs, propaganda, innuendo and dog whistles, Maggie took a pass. She was one of the many, many marriage equality opponents that didn't have the courage of their convictions to testify in a court of law in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the Federal Constitutional challenge to Prop 8. She worked tirelessly to pass Prop 8. She had the time, she attended the trial, watching from the bench. So why not step up and defend it?

Plaintiff attorney David Boies has a theory.

"a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that."

Rather than a witness stand, Maggie is much more comfortable in the bully pulpit, free of the rules of evidence or threat of perjury.

It's well-documented that Maggie and her crew can't or won't follow the law. They steal music and art work with impunity and they have been dogged by legal and ethical investigations in every state they've operated, in California, Iowa, Rhode Island, Washington, Maine and others.

They are accused of violating campaign finance law in the state of Maine, by not disclosing their donor list as compelled by law. In defense, they filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. Yesterday, they lost.

The ruling, handed down late today, is being praised by supporters of Maine's campaign spending disclosure laws. "This is an important decision for Maine voters, because they need to know who is influencing them on ballot questions," says Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election practices.

....

The challenge was brought by the National Organization for Marriage, which spent $1.9 million dollars in a successful campaign to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law in 2009. The Ethics Commission had determined that NOM was required to disclose the identities of its donors, but the group refused, and filed suit on grounds that Maine's requirements were unconstitutional on a number of fronts.

Such a pity that the taxpayers of Maine are burdened with the cost of defending a law against a legal challenge from a group that has consistently shown no respect for the truth, the law or other human beings.

If NOM, an out-of-state special interest group, prevails in New Hampshire, it will clearly be an expensive proposition for the taxpayers there, as well. One wonders how many Colorado state taxpayer dollars were wasted in the failed defense of Colorado's discriminatory law, in the Romer v. Evans case?

If repeal goes through, it is a near certainty that it will only be a matter of time before an advocacy group steps up and challenges the law, in State or Federal court, or both. Just a few organizations that are sure to look into taking it on might be the Americans for Equal Rights (who funded the Prop 8 challenge), American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (all of whom are currently challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act).

The NH Attorney General will then be tasked to defend a law that few people wanted passed in the first place. It will be a long, divisive and expensive and wholly unnecessary battle.

And don't expect Maggie to swing back to New Hampshire and defend these laws if they pass. She'll be MIA, just like she was to California. I am reminded of a one of my favorite literary quotes:

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."-F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

So, while taxpayer dollars are wasted paying the Attorney General's office to defend it, Maggie and her friends will be laughing all the way to the bank, collecting money to "protect marriage" even as they run roughshod over it.

How much does Maggie herself hate gays? Who know? At the end of the day she's happy to collect a paycheck feeding off the crowd that does. She doesn't care a bit about the devastation and chaos she and her organization leave in their wake in states across the country. They devastate families, state budgets, the political, electoral and judicial systems without a care in the world and just move on to the next state.

In November, voters had the good sense to stop NOM in their tracks, rejecting their call for the scalp of Governor Lynch on the issue of marriage equality. Let's hope lawmakers also have the good sense to stop an out-of-state special interest group from dictating the policies of the Granite State.

Montana: Teabagger state lawmaker files bill to rescind all local LGBT rights ordinances

Again, as we've seen in my earlier post, the fringe bigots have decided to flex their post-midterm gains at the state level to begin a campaign of misogyny to rid women of their reproductive autonomy through frightening legislation. Of course this runs neck and neck with homophobic bullsh*t bills like this in Montana (via JMG):

Today, the House Judiciary Committee heard a bill from Rep. Kris Hansen. The bill seeks to undo protections put in place by local communities to expand on the state's Human Rights Act. This act protects certain protected groups from discrimination in housing, employment and other public accommodations.

Opponents of the measure came from across the state to testify. Unfortunately, the Republican majority on the committee attempted to limit testimony on both sides of the issue to ten minutes. Democrats on the committee objected and even presented rules that require the public be able to at least verbally state their opposition to the bill. The Republicans on the committee ignored the rules, and refused to let opponents of the bill testify.

What's pathetic about this maneuver is that the Rethugs limited testimony on this subject, but let the clock run free on debate on this legislation:

SB 112 - Which allows makes a hand thrown spear a legal form of hunting.HB 278 - Which allows every city to create their own militia.

SJ 2 - Which urges the United States to withdraw from the United Nations.

HB 205 - The "Birther Bill."HB 384 - Which allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars, banks and churches.If you're LGBT and living in Montana, your hair should be standing on the back of your neck. Those in support of rolling back rights simply want you dead. Take Pastor Harris Himes who believes that gays should not be able to rent apartments and homes in Montana because homosexuality is a sin punishable by death.

Georgia: lawmaker's bill calls for state 'womb police' to investigate all miscarriages

AAARRRRGGGGHHH! This assault on the bodies of women and their autonomy at the most basic level is thankfully out of the box completely now. We don't have to wonder what the womb controllers of the fringe want to do - anything related to sex (expressions of it), sexuality (anything other than P-I-V, man-woman), fertility (popping out a quiverfull per God's instruction) and the ability to make choices about the care of her body are clearly not the domain of American women.

In Georgia, House Republican Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta-43, bobby.franklin@house.ga.gov; here's his official state Facebook page) has a bright idea - protect the earliest form of "life", even the results of a miscarriage, to ensure the woman isn't up to nefarious deeds. From HB 1,

SECTION 2.14.

Said title is further amended by revising subsection (a) of Code Section 31-10-18, relating to registration of spontaneous fetal deaths, as follows: "(a) A report of spontaneous fetal death for each spontaneous fetal death which occurs in this state shall be filed with the local registrar of the county in which the delivery occurred within 72 hours after such delivery in accordance with this Code section unless the place of fetal death is unknown, in which case a fetal death certificate shall be filed in the county in which the dead fetus was found within 72 hours after such occurrence. All induced terminations of pregnancy shall be reported in the manner prescribed in Code Section 31-10-19. Preparation and filing of reports of spontaneous fetal death shall be as follows:

(1) When a dead fetus is delivered in an institution, the person in charge of the institution or that person's designated representative shall prepare and file the report;

(2) When a dead fetus is delivered outside an institution, the physician in attendance at or immediately after delivery shall prepare and file the report;

(3) When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the 'Georgia Death Investigation Act,' the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days; and

(4) When a spontaneous fetal death occurs in a moving conveyance and the fetus is first removed from the conveyance in this state or when a dead fetus is found in this state and the place of fetal death is unknown, the fetal death shall be reported in this state. The place where the fetus was first removed from the conveyance or the dead fetus was found shall be considered the place of fetal death.

The DailyKos diary on this topic laid out some of the situations that challenges Franklin's stupidity, because here are situations where you can't save the life of both fetus and mother:

* What if the woman learns  that she has cancer and must terminate the pregnancy in order to get treatment? No exception for that in this bill.

* What about a case where the woman is hemorrhaging, the bleeding can't be stopped and the doctor must save her and abort the fetus? No exception for that.

* What if she has a partial miscarriage, and is bleeding heavily. Must she wait until her body naturally ejects the dead fetus, even though carrying a dead fetus can lead to septic shock?  Doesn't sound like there's an exception for that.

* What if it's an ectopic pregnancy? You cannot save the fetus and the mother in such a case.

* What if the woman is told she's carrying an anecephalic fetus with only a brain stem which  will be non-viable outside the womb? Must she carry that fetus full-term?

Of course Franklin doesn't think about these matters; he and his cronies are hell-bent on controlling the woman carrying the "zygote, embryo, homunculus, and similar terms" as referred to in the bill. The boldness of GOP lawmakers to dive into these social issues right away shows the distress they have with changes in society, and their desire to reshape it by any means necessary, violating the civil rights of over half of the population.

Besides that -- where is Franklin going to come up with the money to fund this new Georgia Womb Police Division?

H/t JMG.