Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 91

Ready for secession (again): South Carolina may adopt its own currency

When I saw the headline at TPM, I had to email our resident Palmetto State barista, Alvin McEwen to ask: "Alvin, what is going on in your state?!"

Picking up on the ancestral tradition, South Carolinians have spent much of the last two years asserting various forms of independence from the federal government and attempting to block different federal laws. Now a state senator from the Palmetto State has decided it's time for South Carolina to create its own currency.

State Sen. Lee Bright (R-Roebuck) says that federal spending and increased monetary intervention by the Fed have placed the entire US Federal Reserve system on a path to monetary collapse. And when the crash comes, state residents will need to rely on the stable South Carolina currency to weather the storm.

"If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup," Bright told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal on Friday.

Cherishing The Unclaimed Award Of A Loved Friend

A number of weeks ago I received an email from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation's (GLAAD's) Nick Adams.

For the 19th Annual GLAAD Media Awards in 2008, Christine Daniels was nominated for Outstanding Newspaper Columnist. She actually was the winner in that category that year, but she never claimed the award -- GLAAD still had the award statue they would have presented to Christine on stage.

Nick asked me if I would like to have it -- he wrote me that the award should be with someone who knew Christine and valued her friendship.

I wrote back to Nick that I would be very, very honored to hold onto the award in memory of my friend.

Yesterday (Friday, February 11, 2011), I came home from yet another dental appointment at the VA to find the expected package from GLAAD on my doorstep.

It was a surprisingly difficult box for me to open, in that it was a much more emotional moment than I expected it to be. When I held the award in my hands for the first time, it seemed every emotion I've felt at my friend's death by suicide flooded through me one more time.

The award reads:

Christine Daniels

Los Angeles Times

Outstanding Newspaper Columnist

19th Annual

GLAAD Media Award

I sobbed when I read the inscription.

It dawned on me the moment I first held the award statue that what I held in my hands was the only "brick-and-mortar" item that I have that's specific to Christine -- all I have besides the award are digital photographs and memories.

The second thought that dawned on me was the realization that Christine purged everything from her Los Angeles apartment that was referential herself as Christine when she detransitioned to Mike Penner a year before her passing. If she'd have accepted the GLAAD Outstanding Newspaper Columnist award in person, the award would in all likelihood be buried deep in a landfill. I'm so very glad -- and so very honored -- to have the award statue instead of a landfill having it. I'm going to cherish the award as much as I cherished Christine as a friend.

In part, I'll hold the award as a reminder of the importance of treating others in trans community as I want to be treated. Christine wasn't treated particularly well by many members within the transgender subcommunity of the LGBT community -- she was considered by many not to be serious and weighty enough to be an effective spokesperson for trans community. And too, even though she was quite a beautiful and attractive woman, she was frequently berated for her alleged masculine appearance.

At the San Diego memoriam for the Transgender Day Of Remembrance this past November, Kelly Moyer made a poignant speech on the subject of how we treat each other within community -- I believe it should be required reading for trans (and broader LGBT) community members regarding how to treat others within one's own community.

I still miss Christine so very, very much. She was special, and I don't believe she realized how special she was...and how loved she really was by so many of us.

I suppose it goes without saying that I'm still feeling the reverberations of Christine's death by suicide almost a year-and-a-half after her passing; I'm still missing her something fierce.

To my peers and friends in trans community, our community is one where more than four in ten of us have attempted suicide at some point during our lives -- a rate twenty-five times higher than that of broader society. If you feel suicidal, please remember you are not as alone as you might think you are -- People you know are going to care deeply if you die by suicide; people you know are going to care even if you think they won't care.

If you feel suicidal, please reach out for help -- the Trevor Project is one place where you can find resources to help you -- find access to people who will help you. Please take care of yourselves...it's an incredibly important thing to do.

~~~~~

Related:

* Pam's House Blend tag: Christine Daniels

My self-assessment after reading the Glamour survey on women and "I hate my body" thoughts

Glamour breathlessly announced findings in its survey on body image and I'm not sure what there is to be stunned about - women are bombarded 24/7 with images of idealized bodies that don't reflect the reality of the average woman's size, shape, fitness level (or color for that matter):

Read these words: "You are a fat, worthless pig." "You're too thin. No man is ever going to want you." "Ugly. Big. Gross." Horrifying comments on some awful website? The rant of an abusive, controlling boyfriend? No; shockingly, these are the actual words young women are saying to themselves on any typical day. For some, such thoughts are fleeting, but for others, this dialogue plays on a constant, punishing loop, according to a new exclusive Glamour survey of more than 300 women of all sizes. Our research found that, on average, women have 13 negative body thoughts daily-nearly one for every waking hour. And a disturbing number of women confess to having 35, 50 or even 100 hateful thoughts about their own shapes each day.

..."That is a lot, yet I'm not totally surprised," says Ann Kearney-Cooke, Ph.D., a Cincinnati psychologist who specializes in body image and helped Glamour design the survey. "It's become such an accepted norm to put yourself down that if someone says she likes her body, she's the odd woman out. I was in a group discussion recently, and when one woman said, 'I actually feel OK about the way I look,' another woman scrunched up her face and said, 'I have never in my whole life heard anyone say that-and I'm not sure I even believe you.' That's how pervasive this negative body talk is. It's actually more acceptable to insult your body than to praise it."

And we seem to be well aware of how hard we are on ourselves. Nearly 63 percent of Glamour's survey respondents said they had roughly the same number of negative thoughts as they expected. But few realized how venomous those thoughts were until they were down on paper. So how has this become OK?

Our unattainable cultural beauty ideals, our celebrity worship-those all play a part, says Kearney-Cooke. But another big reason is that we've actually trained ourselves to be this way. "Neuroscience has shown that whatever you focus on shapes your brain. If you're constantly thinking negative thoughts about your body, that neural pathway becomes stronger-and those thoughts become habitual," she explains. "Imagine a concert pianist. Her brain would have stronger neural pathways that support musicality and dexterity than someone who hadn't spent her life practicing."

OK, so it's our broken brains that we've trained to cycle in these self-loathing thoughts. You can read the rest of the article for more; I was just dropping this in as a topic. I'm sure that the level of harsh self-evaluation, particularly when it comes to gay men, may be disproportionally high, given all the hardbodies you see in magazines directed at that demo. Some of the actual comments by survey participants are truly vile:

"Fat-ass. Lazy bitch. I hate my thighs. I hate my stomach. I hate my arms.""Your stomach is fat. That is why you are alone.""I can't imagine anyone wanting to have sex with this.""Huge legs, fat stomach, not pretty enough to attract anyone, ugly in comparison to others.""I look disgusting with my cottage cheese legs and stretch-mark hips. Nasty. No one would want to touch me." I'm racking my brain to think about how often I do this each day. I've inherited my mom's side of the family when it comes to over-ample boobage and I've accepted "the girls" for what they are. My legs are short and muscular, I've accepted those. Honestly, I only think about where I express self-criticism is when getting dressed, usually on the problem areas for my apple-shape - abdomen, arms. I don't carry it in my hips.

The hysterectomy, which causes "swelly belly" for some women, makes it uncomfortable to wear jeans (and it does for me), so it sort of exacerbated my issues on that front.

My operation also made me realize why a lot of women in midlife choose the often fashionista-decried "mommy jeans" that sit just above your natural waist, or those with elasticized backs (or now, jeggings) - many have had reproductive issues -- hysterectomies, cancer, even multiple caesareans that make wearing low-slung tight jeans a thing of the past. Yet women who choose some level of comfort out of necessity are made to feel undesireable or the butt of jokes as a fashion outlier.

Anyway, from my POV I know I can be stylish and not a size 0, and choose things that flatter. Now whether anyone laughs at me or considers me "less-than" in terms of attractiveness - I can't change what someone who doesn't even know me thinks about whether I qualify for their personal beauty standard. But you do really have to figure out how to deal with your own internal critic first.

It seems like step 1 for some women would be to throw out all of the magazines idolizing the unrealistic standard.

Q of the day: So how often do you have self-critical thoughts about your body/body image?

A Poll Worth Freeping

Public Policy Polling is asking folks to weigh in on where they should poll next? The choices? Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Washington. 

The Poll is here.

I'm recommending you surf over and click "Rhode Island." Here's why:

It's a very easy way for our community to put good (free) data into the hands of the advocates in that state to make their case to the legislators. It's been seven months near as I can see since we've had reliable polling in Rhode Island on the issue of marriage equality. In June 2009, National Organization for Marriage was up to their usual dirty tricks. They commissioned a poll that allegedly showed 43% opposed and 36% support.

Of course, this is NOM's usual nonsense and lies. The sample pool was probably culled from a Tea Party Convention. The last poll I can find was commissioned by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in July, 2010. A survey of 502 likely voters showed very, very different results:

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

Favor: 59%
Oppose: 31%

As the vote heats up in Rhode Island, surely NOM will be quoting their fake poll left and right. Unlike, National Organization for Marriage, however, Public Policy Polling is a well-respected pollster with creditability. If they were to release similar results at this time, it could well resonate with lawmakers who are on the fence about this issue. Fresh headlines of support can only help move that vote in our favor and marginalize the opposition.

Now, there's no guarantee that Public Policy Polling will actually ask anything about marriage equality. But with the battle looming large in that state, they'd very remiss if they didn't include a question. 

I've been assured that last time they conducted such a survey, they did indeed go with the popular vote winner. 

The Poll is here. It take just a moment to click on it. It ends Monday.

Hawaii House of Representatives Passes Civil Unions Bill

Aloha and Happy Saturday, Blenders! There is exciting news out of Hawaii to kick off the weekend. SB232, which establishes Civil Unions, passed its third and final reading yesterday in the Hawaii State House of Representatives by a vote of 31-19.

Usually not at a loss for words, Alan Spector needed a moment to compose himself before reacting to yesterday's vote by the state House of Representatives to legalize civil unions in Hawaii.

Spector was among about two dozen supporters of the civil-unions bill who quietly celebrated in the Capitol courtyard following the House vote — an outcome that was as emotional as it was expected.

"This shows that persistence pays off," said Spector, co-chairman of Equality Hawaii. "This is a great day for Hawaii."

The YES votes were Reps. Belatti, Brower, Carroll, Coffman, Evans, Hanohano, Hashem, Herkes, Ichiyama, Ito, Jordan, Keith-Agaran, Chris Lee, Marilyn Lee, Luke, Marumoto, McKelvey, Morikawa, Morita, Nakashima, Nishimoto, Blake Oshiro, Marcus Oshiro, Pono, Rhoads, Saiki, Speaker Say, Takumi, Thielen, Wooley, and Yamashita.

The NO votes were Reps. Aquino, Awana, Chang, Ching, Choy, Cullen, Fontaine, Har, Johanson, Manahan, Mizuno, Pine, Riviere, Souki, Takai, Tokioka, Tsuji, Ward, and Yamane.

Rep. Cabanilla was excused from the final vote.

Because an amendment was added to SB232, it must go back to the Senate for a final vote before going to Gov. Abercrombie's desk. According to Hawaii Pride Alliance's Van Law, "The House made a clarifying amendment per recommendation from the Attorney General's office. It clarifies that state tax laws applies to married couples and civil union couples in the same way. Now the Senate has to vote to accept that change, which the Senate Judiciary Chair has indicated they should without much debate."

"If everything looks OK, we'll probably just do our vote in the early part of the week," said Senate President Shan Tsutsui (D, Wailuku-Kahului).

"There is a commitment" to moving quickly, said Sen. Brickwood Galuteria (D, Downtown-Waikiki), Senate majority leader.

Civil Unions isn't the only bill in play for the LGBT community during this legislative session. HB546 would codify employment nondiscrimination based on gender identity or expression. Currently GI is a protected class in housing and public accomodation. HB546 passed out of the House Committee on Labor, and has yet to be scheduled for a hearing by the Judiciary Committee.

The other bill is SB934, which deals with issues of bullying. The bill was heard on February 9th by the Senate Committee on Education, and passed out of committe by a vote of 5-0, 1 excused. SB934 specifically lists sexual orientation and gender identity in its text.

"Bullying" or "cyberbullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication including but not limited to a communication shown to be motivated by a student's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry or ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical, mental, emotional, or learning disability, gender, gender identity and expression, or other distinguishing personal characteristic...

Congratulations to all those working for equality in Hawaii, including Pride Alliance, Equality Hawaii, Unite Here Local 5, PFLAG, Da Moms, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, the interfaith community, and all those in the a'ina who have come out in support of equal rights.

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

I asked Kerry Eleveld, editor at Equality Matters, if I could repost this excellent piece because it's chock full of tasty and timely points for us to chat about in the coffeehouse, so many thanks to EM's Richard Socarides for letting me share it here.  --Pam

The False Choice: ENDA v. Marriage Equality

By Kerry Eleveld

A potentially divisive debate is emerging among some LGBT activists that sets up a false choice between pushing for employment nondiscrimination protections or marriage equality at the federal level. I roundly reject the notion that this is an either-or proposition. As a community, we can and should work on both issues over the next two years. But it's fair to say that while I personally believe these two issues are equally as important, they are not equally situated, and therefore the strategies we must employ to advance them are distinctly different.

Let's start with a brief overview of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) -- which would prohibit employers from firing people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity -- from my perspective as a reporter who covered the issue closely over the last two years.

First, regardless of why we failed to pass ENDA in the 111th Congress, the fact is that we didn't even get a committee vote in either chamber on the bill in one of the most heavily weighted Democratic Congresses in recent memory. Many people underestimate just how devastating that looks to legislative operatives and lawmakers outside our community. They don't care about the panoply of explanations for why the vote didn't happen, they only know that it didn't and that means that either we couldn't muster the votes or the Democratic leadership did not want to see this bill debated on the floor.

Second, although I have asked a good number of questions about ENDA and its prospects for a vote, I still can't tell you why it never happened. Meanwhile, I can recall with decent clarity nearly every twist and turn of the battle to pass "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) repeal. This is not due to a bias on my part, but is rather indicative of the fact that no one seemed willing to talk with any specificity about what was or wasn't happening with ENDA.

And here is where our community's analysis must begin -- we need to have an honest conversation about our inability to discuss ENDA and transgender issues. Last year, when I asked people in our advocacy groups, staffers on the Hill, and lawmakers about the prospects for passing ENDA, I most commonly got no information or misinformation.  As the bill continued to languish and the House committee vote was continually delayed, my questions were increasingly met with indignation and wholesale assurances that all was going according to plan. But ultimately, all I found was a brick wall when it came to identifying the hurdles.

Meanwhile, many in our activist community leveled hostility at any entity that relayed bad news about the legislation's progress. When the Washington Blade reported a story in January 2010 entitled "Filibuster Threat Makes ENDA Unlikely In 2010" in which several anonymous sources sounded the alarm bells about ENDA's chances, it immediately drew shoot-the-messenger recriminations from people who criticized the story for using unnamed sources. This illustrates just what a lighting-rod issue this has become for LGBT activists -- instead of holding the powerbrokers in charge of the legislation accountable, activists were vilifying reporters who were trying to disseminate intelligence about the bill's state of play. And this is precisely why journalists were often forced to use anonymous sources on the topic -- no one seemed willing to speak on the record with any real candor about the topic.

More below the fold.

This has grave implications for our ability to develop a strategy around ENDA and successfully move the bill. If members of the LGBT community are incapable of having a forthright conversation about the obstacles to passing this bill, what does that mean for lawmakers and their ability to discuss the issue?

This is a problem, folks. Not just for our elected officials, not just for our groups, but for our community as a whole. We all have a stake in ENDA -- it would provide critical protections for the full breadth of the queer community -- but the battle over transgender inclusion in 2007 has left us with so many scars that people are afraid to speak up for fear of the backlash.

Of course, some discussions are beginning to happen now, but I don't believe we have really illuminated the problem yet. I have heard people suggest that we had enough votes to pass the legislation in the House but never got that vote because the clock ran out. Some have also hypothesized that DADT repeal and health care sucked up too much time in the schedule to leave room for ENDA.

From my perspective, this cannot possibly be the whole story. If we truly had the votes in the House and yet failed to move the bill through committee to the floor, then that was a serious strategic misstep even if it would have stalled in the Senate. Bills live and die by momentum. They get a chief sponsor and then more sponsors and then a committee vote and then a floor vote. And maybe they don't pass both chambers one Congress, but if they make it through one, they are better poised to pass through both next time around.

So if we did have the votes and our advocates (lawmakers and groups included) didn't press the issue, that was a critical error. And the idea that there just wasn't room in the calendar because of DADT and health care seems like a red herring as well. Health care was completed in the House in March of 2010. Attaching "don't ask, don't tell" repeal to the Defense authorization bill took place two months later in May, but that was it -- the House had the votes and was ready to go, they were mostly waiting on the Senate Armed Services Committee to line up the votes. So something doesn't add up.

Rather than pointing fingers here, I am simply pointing out that we are miles away from having the full story about ENDA's demise and I don't see how we can possibly expect to develop a strategy around an issue that we can't seem to discuss in full candor.

I said at the outset of this piece that ENDA and marriage equality were not equally situated. Though both issues are about creating safety nets for people who need to protect themselves and their families, they are not as equally ingrained in the public consciousness. Similar to the issue of DADT, same-sex marriage has been percolating as part of a national debate since the early '90s when a Hawaii court ruled that gay couples might have the right to marry. Marriage is a concept everyone understands and the American public has watched the marriage equality battle rip through nearly every state in the country -- some fights being more high-profile than others.

If you asked the vast majority of Americans right now whether same-sex couples can get married, most of them would have a frame of reference for the question, regardless of whether they answered the question correctly. But if you asked them whether LGBT people can be legally fired, my guess is that few of them would have ever even considered the question. My own personal experience of talking to reasonably well-informed straight allies is that many have no idea people can still be fired on the basis of their sexual orientation in 29 states or that transgender individuals can be fired in 38 states.

Although the marriage issue has been painted by some as an elitist concern pushed by wealthy donors, a New York Times article last month revealed new Census Bureau data showing that cities like San Antonio, TX and Jacksonville, FL have the highest concentration of gay couples raising children in the country. Demographers also found that black or Latino gay couples were twice as likely as whites to be raising children. While we cannot definitively say all those couples want to get married, it is undeniably true that they and their families could benefit significantly from the protections provided by marriage.

And they could also benefit from the protections provided by ENDA.

This is exactly why we must work on both issues simultaneously. But ENDA requires a serious two-year lobbying strategy at the very least. My sense from talking to Hill staffers and, in some cases, members of Congress is that many lawmakers still don't know how to broach transgender issues and, quite frankly, have more questions than answers on the matter. The House is undoubtedly further along than the Senate, but work is badly needed in both chambers.

Meanwhile, high profile court cases regarding both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry will continue to provide opportunities for advocates to advance the conversation around equal marriage rights. It would be an absolute mistake for our community not to capitalize on stories that will already be making mainstream headlines in order to sway public opinion and push our political allies. We must strive to frame this issue to our advantage because antigay forces are already redoubling their efforts against us.

ENDA and marriage equality are simply not an either-or proposition. Fortunately, the resources required to advance each of these issues at the federal level share similarities but don't infringe on each other. And choosing between them is not an option.

Kerry Eleveld is editor at Equality Matters, a campaign for full LGBT equality. Eleveld previously served as Washington Correspondent for The Advocate for the first two years of the Obama Administration.

Mubarak's outta there; military in charge

The party's over for Mubarak. Now he has to find a getaway car/plane/boat to exile.

Egypt's 30 years under President Hosni Mubarak ended to thunderous cries of revolution on Friday, after millions of pro-democracy protesters who'd occupied the country's largest cities for days threatened a "Day of Marytrs" if he did not leave.

Mubarak had vowed to remain in the presidency, but after 17 days of intense protest and violent outbursts, he was compelled to again appear on television and insist upon staying. While Mubarak did initially cede some powers to his vice president, he did not quit, enraging the protesters.

Then, with a statement on Friday that lasted not but 30-seconds, Vice President Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak's departure. Before going, the former president reportedly asked the army to assume control of the country's affairs.

Colorado: officer resigns - posted hundreds of racist, homophobic comments on news sites on the job

It must be really difficult for someone to handle their own racism and homophobia that is so intense that you can't think straight, as it were. A 13-year member of the Douglas County (Colorado) Sheriff's office resigned for posting bigoted statements on public news sites while on duty and on a county computer.

Lt. Jeff Egnor resigned Tuesday after Douglas County officials confronted him about hundreds of postings on the 7NEWS website, www.thedenverchannel.com, and the KUSA-TV website, according to Undersheriff Tony Spurlock.

Posting under the screen name "Abu Mybutt", Egnor commented on various stories from police shootings to the elimination of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that will let gay soldiers serve openly in the military. "New miltary slogans: The few, the queer, the Marines! Butt Rangers lead the way! Be as gay as you can be! Aim for a high hard one, Air Force! Join the Navy, see naked men!" Egnor posted on Dec. 20, 2010, misspelling military.

Two similar posts: "Now we have a new weapon against our enemies: the sissy slap! :-P" and "I hear the Army is forming a new division: The Rump Rangers! :-D." Egnor also made comments about religious figures and attacked liberals, saying Democrats are ruining the United States.

Egnor made it clear that he worked in government and when other readers of TheDenverChannel.com complained, 7NEWS filed an open records request to determine who was using the Douglas County Internet Provider address linked to the postings. After the 7NEWS request, Spurlock said superiors confronted Egnor Tuesday morning. He resigned that afternoon.

He also commented on stories about sports figures like the arrest of Parrish Cox for sex assault.

"Another member of the 'thug' culture that the NFL promotes. You can take the player out of the hood, but you can't take the hood out of the player! Hey I've got a great idea, let's take a gangbanger from the hood, throw millions of dollars at him, worship him as a god, kiss his butt night and day, let the media slober all over him! Then they are all suddenly shocked when the thug acts like a thug!"

I think this shows you that many news sites (that often times are not moderated), are  havens for some of the most, um, unbalanced extreme commenters, who like to hide under the cloak of anonymity. That this ass disclosed that he worked for the taxpayers in Douglas County, saved everyone the trouble of purging Abu Mybutt/former Lt. Jeff Egnor from the comments. For now. Abu can now look for work.

PolitiFact catches anti-gay group NOM in a huge lie about gay marriage and children

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The Pulitzer Prize winning site PolitiFact just called out the National Organization for Marriage for pushing a misleading statement.

And it's a huge lie - one that is central to the organization's argument against same-sex marriage:

In early January, just days after Lincoln Chafee replaced Donald Carcieri as governor of Rhode Island, advocates on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate ramped up their annual battle.

This year, the fight is taking on new intensity because, while Carcieri vowed for eight years to veto any bill to legalize gay marriage, Chafee supports it.

Recently, a leading opponent, the National Organization for Marriage, mailed brochures throughout the state that included the headline: "Imposing same-sex marriage has consequences." The brochure listed four "real consequences" of "redefining marriage to a genderless institution."

We chose to examine one of the claims: "Massachusetts’ public schools teach kids as young as kindergartners about gay marriage. Parents have no legal right to object!"

We contacted Christopher C. Plante, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of NOM, who told us that many schools in Massachusetts -- where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004 -- have books on the subject in their libraries.The "poster child," he said, is a picture book called "King & King," by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland.

The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for the princess’s brother, Prince Lee.

The two marry, and the book says "everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

PolitiFact said that when they asked for examples of where this book is being taught to kindergartners, Plante referred them to Lexington, MA:

  . . .two couples -- David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin -- filed a federal lawsuit against Lexington school officials. The suit alleged that the Parkers’ son was given a book in kindergarten that depicts various forms of families, including one with parents of the same gender. And, the suit said, when the Wirthlins’ son was in first grade, he was read another book,  "King &King," in school.

PolitiFact went on to recount the Parker/Wirthlin lawsuit (a more in-depth version of the David Parker controversy is here) but was still not receiving any answers regarding the claim that "gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners in Massachusetts."

 

Plante referred PolitiFact to Kris Mineau, executive director of the Massachusetts Family Institute. The Massachusetts Family Institute is another so-called pro-family group. This is what Mineau told Politifact:

Mineau said he has been fighting same-sex marriage advocates for eight years and he is certain their message is being spread in schools throughout Massachusetts.

But he acknowledged he could not cite any examples other than Lexington. "I don’t have documentation of everything going on," Mineau said. "It’s very difficult to quantify."

Mineau also claimed that the outcome of the Parker/Wirthlin case (Parker and Wirthlin lost) supposedly "discouraged" parents from complaining.

PolitiFact then spoke with Jonathan Considine of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and Thomas Gosnell, president of the American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts.

All of these groups and individuals said that they were not aware of any school, classroom, or situation in which gay marriage is being taught to kindergartners.

Politifact concluded thusly:

Bottom line: The National Organization for Marriage mailing says that Massachusetts public schools teach kindergartners about gay marriage. The wording, including the present tense verb, gives the impression this is happening now, in many schools.

But the group’s only evidence is two incidents five years ago. It’s possible that somewhere, in one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, other kindergartners have been taught about same-sex marriage. But NOM couldn’t cite any other examples. We find its statement False.

PolitiFact is the same site which called out Sarah Palin for her "death panel" lie and also the Republican party for claiming that the Obama Administration was pushing a "government takeover of health care."

Both of these claims received the PolitiFact Lie of the Year for 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Depending on the reach of its claim, it's obvious that NOM's lie regarding "gay marriage being taught to kindergartners in Massachusetts" may be a front runner for the 2011 Lie of Year.

My bottom line - NOM either needs to back up its claim with some suitable proof or take back what it said and apologize for misleading people.

Hat tip to my online buddy Bob Barnes for pointing the article out to me. I took the liberty in bolding the word "false" in the PolitiFact statement.

Valentine's Day in Maryland is about more than dinner and roses this year

Equality Maryland's annual Lobby Day is happening on Monday, February 14th at 5pm in Annapolis.  Show your little love bug how much you care by bringing hir, her or him by the state house for a spot of lobbying for the gender identity anti-discrimination and marriage equality bills.  You can find more details and sign up here.

Equality Maryland recently posted this essay by Sandy Rawls, a transgender activist from Baltimore.  It's another sober reminder of how immediate the need is for employment and housing protections for transgender people in Maryland.

After beginning my transition, I was pushed out of the trucking trade. While looking for employment in other fields at entry levels of work I found it to be much harder then I imagined too find work and make a livable wage.

I spent a short time at my ex-wife's house, but ended up living in emergency shelters, but they would often want me to sleep in male quarters.  To spare myself of that mental anguish I began living on the streets.  I would ride the Baltimore light rail during the day to get sleep and stay awake all night to watch out for my safety.  After eight months, I was accepted into a local Baltimore homeless shelter. I was, at times, discriminated against by the staff and residents.

With my future in mind, I said "even if it kills me" one day I will be part of the transgender activist movement to help establish resources in the community to help other transgender people become productive citizens.

Today, I am the director and founder of a transgender organization called Trans-United.  Trans-United provides vital resources and advocates for social justice for the transgender community.  As a part of my work with Trans-United, I have traveled to Annapolis each year to lobby on behalf of the Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Act (HB 235).  I have testified in the committee and shared my story with my legislators.

Recently, I participated in Equality Maryland's "Why Equality Matters Day" on January 31st.  Again, I found myself lobbying my lawmakers to push for support of anti-discrimination protections.  I will also be joining EQMD for their annual lobby day efforts on Monday, February 14th.  I'll be joined with others and will participate as a fellow speaker at Lawyers Mall at 5:00 PM.

I'll be there when the bill is heard and I plan to keep fighting to convince our legislators that we need these protections under the law, and now.  Our freedoms and civil rights as transgender people definitely are not free. We have to make our voices heard and be an active part of the solution.  Not only this year as we fight for HB 235, but in future fights to come.