Each year in the United States, perhaps a few dozen pregnant women learn they are carrying a fetus at risk for a rare disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The condition causes an accumulation of male hormones and can, in females, lead to genitals so masculinized that it can be difficult at birth to determine the baby's gender.
A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It's not without health risks, but to its critics those are of small consequence compared with this notable side effect: The treatment might reduce the likelihood that a female with the condition will be homosexual. Further, it seems to increase the chances that she will have what are considered more feminine behavioral traits.
An alert reader sent us this link as follow-up to our own coverage of anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer and MN Forward, the infinite-money PAC set up to test corporate giving in the post-Citizens United world.
It's a terrific explanation of why corporate giving to troglodytes like Emmer is fundamentally (and dangerously) different than all the other ways corporations can insert money to clog the populist drain.
[Corporate] PACs were the vehicle corporations used to spend money on elections, which sounds an awful like what is happening now, but isn't. The difference is in the funding. Corporations weren't allowed to donate directly from their corporate treasury to PACs. Instead, the corporation's employees needed to donate money to the PAC as individuals. That meant a few thousand dollars from the CEO and the other board members, and anyone else who trusted the corporation to represent its interests. The PAC was limited by whatever money it could collect—that Target had millions in its corporate treasury meant nothing if they could only collect thousands from their employees. From those limited funds, the PAC could then donate to candidates and make independent expenditures.
The Supreme Court didn't like this system one bit and tossed it out in a case called Citizen's United. The reasoning . . . boils down to this: corporations, like people, have a right to speech, and because money is speech, limitations on corporate spending are unconstitutional. As a result, corporations are now free to promote their views by making unlimited independent contributions that flow directly from their corporate treasuries.
So now, [Target CEO Gregg] Steinhafel's ability to spend isn't limited by his ability to collect contributions from his individual employees. Instead, as the CEO of Target, he can use his corporation's treasury to spend as much corporate money as he wants to support whoever or whatever he wants. That's how Best Buy and Target were able to give $250,000 from their corporate treasuries to a group with a shadowy name that supports anti-gay bigots.
The article also contains an excellent discussion of what's wrong with corporations "expressing their views," and also why corp spending like this inevitably supports the most backward-looking fellows among us.
About boycotts — Keep in mind that if money is speech, your money is speech as well. So is your neighbor's. Buy at Target, get a talking-to is a rule you can apply anywhere you're standing. (And don't forget Best Buy.)
MoveOn is organizing a boycott — you can join it here. They also suggest selling the stock of early-testers of the Citizens United decision, such as Target and Best Buy. Target stock has fallen recently in the wake of the Emmer story. Our Betters are getting careless; shining a light is not a bad tactic at all.
As a follow-up our earlier piece about Target and MN Backward MN Forward using the Citizens United decision to fund hard-right Minnesotan Tom Emmer in the governer's race, we have these updates.
1. From Steve Perry at Politics in Minnesota, an item from their most recent subscription newsletter, Politics in Minnesota: The Weekly Report (no link, emphasis mine):
Boom times for MN Forward: The new corporate campaign spending vehicle raised about $460,000 by the July 6 preliminary report deadline. Since then it has more than doubled its receipts, which now total $1.1 million. And according to 24-hour reports filed with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFPD), $320,000 of that sum has come in since Monday of last week. . . . So far, MN Forward has spent $195,000 on TV ads backing Republican Tom Emmer. . . .
Target blowback: Target Corp. has taken heat from employees and consumers since the public disclosure of its role as a founding funder of MN Forward. But so far the negative publicity hasn't extended any further. Another prominent Minnesota retailer, Best Buy, has drawn little public attention.
The Best Buy info is new. Elsewhere in the report we learn that Emmer seems to be getting a ton of hidden help:
Republican Tom Emmer has yet to spend his first dime on TV, yet by mid-July he had been the subject of about $900,000 worth of television spots by third-party groups.
2. About the TPM report that MN Backward MN Forward was going to give to Dems as well, I'm not sure this will happen, though Target execs might have done so. A public show of atonement, says my corporate-cynical self; must control appearances — can't lose sales.
3. About "pharmacy conscience" as one of Emmer's "beliefs" — it seems Target has similar corporate views. Here's Wikipedia, sourced from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, November 11, 2005:
In 2005, Planned Parenthood protested Target policy involving a conscience clause that allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense the emergency contraceptive, Plan B Levonorgestrel, based on religious beliefs, as long as the employee ensures that the prescription is filled by another pharmacist in a timely manner. . . . [C]ritics feel this policy fails to uphold the pharmacist's duty of care.
Anti-woman as well. Our thanks to an alert Minnesota reader for the tip.
Bottom line — it seems there are three entwined issues here, all of which are easily acted on:
Tom Emmer. A real throwback, and the Republican candidate for governor. His defeat is doable, but progressives need to put shoulder to wheel in an off-year election. In 2002, Repub Pawlenty defeated DFL Roger Moe 44%–36%, with former Dem Tim Penny taking 16% as a third-party candidate. In 2006, Pawlenty won again, but by less than 1% in another race with a spoiler third-party candidate.
This time, both DFL primary candidates lead Emmer by 5%. Not a walkaway, but not razor-thin. With effort, he can be beaten.
Target. They're singing their corporate song: "Please love us, Mr and Ms Gay Person, we've always loved you, and that Emmer stuff, well, someone goofed, is all. Please?" Next will come the commercials with real humans pretending to be caring Target faces, along with an MN Forward–induced PR campaign about (gasp) jobs, and the march is on to "forgive" them.
But remember — there's a history here. Anti-woman in 2005, anti-gay today, and implicitly pro–faux-religion (or whatever you call it when well-funded revenge freaks claim to speak for God). Don't let the repair-ads and implied threat of job-loss throw you. Join and support the boycotts.
MN Forward. This case remains a major test of the Citizens United waters, with Target and Best Buy (don't forget them) major early testees; and it's not over. I guarantee that nationally, RW corps are using Minnesota to figure out how to make Citizens United work without triggering a back-lash. My suggestion: lash back, hard and now.
By the way, the Politics in Minnesota website is a great place to start if you want to get info about Minnesota elections and campaign financing.
Sorry for the length, but this is both important and not simple, so I wanted to bottom-line it as well as give the data.
Mr. Robert's neighborhood just got a new resident. The store chain Target (Targét as was) decided to flex its corporate muscle by throwing $150,000 at the 2010 Minnesota race, via the ironically named "MN Forward", a creature of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (h/t Steve Perry).
MN Forward is a big supporter of Republican Tom Emmer in the governor's race. Keith Olbermann has the story. (I'm not sure why this segment is only available on YouTube, but the Countdown site appears not to have it.)
Target hits all the ... targets ... with this little bon-bon. A rich chocolate coating of Citizens United, testing just how to control elections with corp funding; with a tangy anti-gay crunch hidden in the middle.
Emmer is also anti-tax, anti-union, anti-minimum wage, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, pro-"pharmacy conscience" . . . and pro-"more rights for DUI arrestees" (yep, he's got two convictions for DUI-related offenses). A real forward-looking guy for MN Forward* to support.
What's Target's defense? As quoted in the show, they only "seek to advance policies in line with our business objectives." (They might as well have said: "Don't blame me; I only want money.")
Quoting pro-gay activist Randi Reitan, "My son is gay, and I love him more than anything I could buy at Target." Thank you for saying it out loud, Ms. Reitan — in the world of actual humans, it's people before things, always.
Note what Christina Bellantoni says, that MN Forward is spooked by the negative publicity. Action, folks.
Action opportunity: Both major DFL party candidates are running 40% to Emmer's 35% in the latest Rasmussen poll. Those candidates are former Senator Mark Dayton and state House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher — and the primary is set for August 10. If you're a Minnesotan, pick one and vote; and then get active in the general election. Emmer's a real troglodyte.
GP
*MN Forward — A prime example of the 180 Tell (whatever they say about themselves is always 180-degrees wrong). If the group were correctly named, they'd be "MN Backward".
Read More......
This site has collected a ton of old gay photos (and some that might just be friendly foreigners, hard to say). They're very cool. (H/t to GayTwogether.com, some of the pics come from there as well.)
Ensign, who is facing a criminal investigation over an affair he had with a staffer, is opposed to passing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise because he thinks it "repeals" DADT before the military's study is done. He's a bit of an idiot in addition to a philanderer. The legislation does not repeal DADT at all. It only permits DADT to be repealed once the study is done - the legislation says that, explicitly. So to oppose the legislation because somehow it would repeal DADT before the study is done, when the legislation specifically says the study has to happen first, makes Ensign either a liar, or an idiot. More from Joe over at AMERICAblog Gay.
Read More......
Anyone else think that the Family Research Concil's Tony Perkins, who brings new meaning to the phrase "straight-acting," spends just a bit too much time thinking about gay sex? Now he's afraid that gays threaten "spooning" in the military. I don't know whether Tony has ever served in the military, but I've got news for him, if soldiers refused to "spoon" with guys they had questions about, the ever-fey Tony would be at the top of the no-spooning list.
Earlier today, activists from GetEQUAL staged another protest to push for LGBT legislation in Congress. Today, the focus was on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the venue was the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol today.
Last week, GetEQUAL published a list of timeline of broken promises from a myriad of elected officials promising votes on ENDA. To date, there have been no votes and, as far as we can tell, none are planned.
A press release from GetEQUAL's provided context for the protest:
"We know that Speaker Pelosi has the political prowess and the political bandwidth to take on ENDA while the Senate is shepherding 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' through the legislative process," said Robin McGehee, co-founder of GetEQUAL. "We are pressuring Speaker Pelosi to move on ENDA because, while we know that she values the legislation, we have yet to see her show the leadership she's promised in taking ENDA out of committee and moving it through the House."
"We are following her advice to 'make her do it,' and to ensure that she and the rest of the House see that people's lives and livelihoods are on the line here," said Heather Cronk, managing director of GetEQUAL. "As we head into the August recess, we will take the energy of today's Rotunda action out into the states, and look forward to building popular support for the legislation in coalition with other LGBT organizations. We will concentrate on the districts where Representatives and Senators have not yet found the courage to step forward to support ENDA -- both Republicans and Democrats." Lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees can be fired from their jobs in 29 states, and transgender or gender-nonconforming employees can be fired in 38 states. (My emphasis)
On Saturday at Netroots Nation, Speaker Pelosi repeatedly told progressive activists to "make her" pass progressive legislation like ENDA, comprehensive immigration reform, and a comprehensive climate change bill. GetEQUAL activists took up that challenge and today's action builds on prior actions that GetEQUAL has organized or co-organized, including sit-ins in Speaker Pelosi's offices in March of this year, a shut-down of the Las Vegas Strip last week targeting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and several rallies at Speaker Pelosi's district office in San Francisco, including one yesterday.
And, some photos from the protest courtesy of Ian Goldin/GetEQUAL.
Yes, Obama is taping "The View" later today. We learned this week that one of the show's hosts, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, is an expert on lesbians. Who knew?:
This is actually very embarrassing.
But, "The View" has established its gay bona fides, perhaps the hosts could get Obama to explain his current positions on LGBT issues, particularly why he continues to defend DOMA and DADT in the courts. After all, Obama has said both laws are discriminatory. Since the President, as President, has never talked to LGBT media, maybe "The View" hosts can fill in.
Read More......
You know how the religious rights and their minions in the GOP are always squawking about the secret homosexual agenda? (Would that our side was organized enough to have an agenda.) We've been wondering what the true goal of the gay haters is. We've had our suspicions, but they're crafty, those haters. But, now we know. See, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is conducting a bus tour of hate this summer. It's been a bust with low turnout at every stop. The Courage Campaign has been tracking and documenting this tour.
Yesterday, the NOM hate bus pulled into Indianapolis. And, that's where the agenda was exposed by Bilerico's Bil Browning: Now, we know. They want to kill us. Gay marriage = death.
NOM's Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown preach a message of hate against LGBT Americans, as do so many of their colleagues in the theocratic right-wing. They want people to think LGBTs are not equal. They want people to think LGBTs are lesser humans. They shouldn't be surprised when their followers come up with solutions like the one in the photo above. That's the path NOM is leading its followers down.
Read More......
I don't have any idea what to make of this Kathy Griffin comment — either in the context of her beliefs about gays, or the context of her career. Here’s the clip; she's talking with Joy Behar on The Joy Behar Show (h/t Lisa Derrick):
The first part of her remarks just don't match the second, which are admittedly very positive. But given this opening:
He was honorably discharged? I don’t know what that means, because to me if he was discharged for being gay, then I don’t know how honorable that is.
— what can she then say that spins this into a positive? The second half of her answer seems to just ignore what she said in the first part.
As to the implications for her career, I don't know much about Kathy Griffin. She came into my life one New Years' Eve alongside Anderson Cooper — the Night of the Snappy Comeback — and left it when they cut to commercial.
So I only suspect I understand who her audience is. But if what I suspect is true, didn't she just diss a good chunk of them who pays her bills?
Again, not judging; just confused.
To add to the Griffin–Choi madness, there's this from the Wash Post — a profile of Griffin that includes a scene of her filming outside the White House just as Dan Choi and Co. started chaining themselves to the fence:
At the rally, Griffin is approached by Dan Choi, a gay Army officer and radical opponent to DADT, who asks her if he can come up onstage with her. Once there, he takes the microphone and implores the crowd to walk with him a few blocks to the White House.
"I am in uniform, I am still fighting, I am still speaking out, I am still serving, and I am still gay," Choi declares. "Will you all here join me? Kathy will you go with me?" he asks Griffin, whose face freezes in PR horror.
Griffin answers yes, but she means no. She chooses to stay behind and deliver the crowd a text message she says has just been sent from Cher, which she dangles before everyone like it's gay catnip. Choi marches over to the White House, where he and another soldier handcuff themselves to the Pennsylvania Avenue fence and are promptly arrested.
It looks like the Post has it in for her in the article, so who knows what's going on?
But definitely a puzzle, all this. Is Griffin's material really just a shtick, and not much more? I guess I'm not the one to say.
We probably don't post enough of the LGBT content from AMERICAblog Gay on the front page. So, we're going to make a concerted effort to highlight more of those posts.
This week, for example, showed great progress on the international front for LGBT equality. The female Presidents of two very Catholic countries signed legislation granting rights to same-sex couples.
On Monday, Ireland's President President Mary McAleese signed the country's new Civil Partnership Law:
My grandparents emigrated from Ireland 100 years ago. I've got loads of family in Ireland. It's a very Catholic country. And, now, it provides more rights for same-sex couples than the U.S.:
The Civil Partnership Bill, which provides legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland for the first time, has today been signed into law.
The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin this morning
It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.
Argentina's President signed the country's new marriage legislation into law today. And, she gave an eloquent speech about equality:
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner enacted the same-sex marriage law during a speech given at Government House. She stated that "this has been a construction, because we haven't enacted a law, but a social construction that is transversal, diverse, and all-encompassing."
"This belongs to the society that built it, and I appreciate everyone's efforts and I evade petty policies. We mustn't impair what's important. This creates institutional quality. We have given more equality," she assured.
In yesterday's post on Argentina, I wrote:
Okay. I know it's a pipe dream, but I am still hoping that someday, in the not too distant future, we'll watch the President of the United States sign legislation granting full equality. But, we're so far from that, I'd settle for having the Obama administration not defend discriminatory laws like DADT and DOMA in the courts.
Two very Catholic countries ignored the criticism and lobbying of the Catholic Church and moved forward on human rights. Be great to live in a country where religious hard-liners don't control public policy.
Read More......
Joe and I have friends who don't understand why we get so upset with President Obama, who we supported in the primaries. This post is an excellent example of why we do.
The Pentagon confirmed on Friday that it is considering segregating gay troops, specifically with regards to creating separate showers and/or barracks for straight and gay troops.
Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld just transcribed the following quote from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at Friday's briefing about the new "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" survey:
"We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."
Segregation, folks. Separate but equal. In the year 2010. And from a black president, no less.
How do you feel about the segregation of blacks in the first half of the 1900s? Did you think it was disgusting that African-Americans weren't permitted to drink out of our fountains, swim in our pools, sit at the front of the bus, share the same bleachers at a game, as the rest of us? Then why is it okay to even talk about segregating gays and lesbians? What would have happened to an Obama administration spokesman who talked about segregating blacks?
They're talking about the possibility of segregation, people. Of instituting a policy of separate-but-equal in the year 2010, under a Democratic president.
It's what they did to Barack Obama's father. Does no one in the White House get the irony here? And does no one understand the political danger here? Does Jim Messina really want to see people showing up at Obama 2012 campaign rallies with the word "Colored" written in ink on their foreheads? With signs saying "Barack, would you segregate your own father?" and "George Wallace Obama"? Or how about simply a crowd of protesters at every event - and every fundraiser the President does for congressional races - wearing signs saying "I am a man"?
A Pentagon spokesman had the audacity to suggest that segregation was an option, and mind you this wasn't the first time that someone at DOD has suggested it. President Obama is the commander in chief. He's also the President of the United States. If one of his own administration spokesmen says segregation is an option, and President Obama doesn't shut that conversation down immediately, and fire the bigot who had the audacity to even suggest such a thing - and he clearly hasn't, as this segregation talking point keeps coming out of this Obama administration - then President Obama is to blame.
Still wonder why people are so pissed off? Ask a black person how they feel about segregated drinking fountains, then get back to us.
If a source makes money off of his relationship with the White House, then you don't ask him what he thinks of the White House, and not disclose his financial interest, and possible bias, to your readers.
Read More......
Welcome to the new Obama administration talking point to explain away the grand disappointment that this President has become for so many gay people: He's done more for gays than any president in history!
Really? He's better than Millard Fillmore? Than Rutherford B. Hayes? Well then, what's to complain about? So long as the current state of civil rights in America is better than it was in 1823, then we should all be counting our lucky stars.
Of course, that's not the way you judge civil rights advancements, and it's not the way you judge presidents. They are judged by the times they live in. They are judged by what they accomplish given their current constraints. Of course Barack Obama has done more for gays than almost any president in history, since for most of American history the country has been rabidly anti-gay. Hell, even George Bush did more for gays than most any president in American history, because all the rest of them were pretty darn awful too.
What an absurdly greasy way to try to explain away the President's inability, or unwillingness, to keep his promise to be a fierce advocate to our community. Rather than touting how much better he is on gay issues than Martin van Buren, perhaps the President could simply keep the promises he made during the campaign: to fully repeal DADT and DOMA, and to pass ENDA. So far, none of those have happened.
