"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you." --Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House
Public Calendar
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
With Michelle Obama's charge to combat childhood obesity, all eyes are on commercially prepared foods that are possible contributors to our roly-poly youth. Manufacturers of high-fat, high-sugar foods are now hot to boost their nutritional profiles to justify their existence in the cupboards of today's family.
So it was no surprise when I started seeing commercials touting colorful, sugar-laden breakfast cereals traditionally aimed at kids -- Trix, Cocoa Puffs, and of course, Lucky Charms -- to say they are "Whole Grain Guaranteed," suggesting they are a significant source of fiber and wholesome goodness.
I turned to Kate and said WTF? I don't eat cereals regularly; occasionally I will get a craving for Lucky Charms, so I'll get a small box and get it out of my system. I can only eat a small bowl at a time, since it is so sweet. I don't know how kids can ingest this and not bounce off of the walls once they are in the classroom. This sh*te is dessert, not part of a balanced breakfast.
Now there's nothing wrong with having the magically delicious cereal if you realize what you are eating. This is not Kashi, Fiber One, Grape Nuts or Shredded Wheat. If you want fiber, you'll eat that. If you have the jones for trash food, you reach for the box with the Leprechaun on it.
Now General Mills marketers must be on crack if they think that they can convince moms that Cocoa Puffs is akin to chocolate-flavored Metamucil for kids. Look at that nutritional label for Lucky Charms, lol (it's a ONE cup serving size, by the way). FOURTEEN grams of sugar? That's rocket fuel for a child. So what that they spray some vitamins on it, that doesn't mitigate the nutritional disaster in a box.
That's why it should be considered a dessert, not a breakfast food. In the context of the impact on your diet of substituting that for say, a hot fudge sundae, then yes, a bowl of Lucky Charms with some skim milk is health food.
Q of the Day:
What foods do you see bogusly marketed as good for you?
With the Pentagon's family survey now in the field, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), will release a letter each day this week from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT. As the Pentagon reaches out to 150,000 straight couples on how their lives are impacted, these letters will share the perspective of those forced to serve under this law alongside their loved ones. SLDN is urging supporters of repeal to call, write, and schedule in-district meetings with both their senators as the defense budget, which contains the repeal amendment, moves to the floor just weeks from now.www.sldn.org/action.
Hon. Jeh C. Johnson
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group
General Carter F. Ham
Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe
Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group
Dear General Ham and Mr. Johnson:
My name is Angela Trumbauer. I am an Air Force enlisted veteran. I was born and raised in a family of 8 children by my father, a retired Air Force officer (deceased 1979), and my widowed mother, a former Air Force officer, who just turned 78 years young this month. I am married to a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant. My stepson is an active-duty Air Force Technical Sergeant. My brother is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a highly decorated 19-year Air Force officer. I hail from the "military family" in every sense.
Over Victor's military career, our family had limited opportunities to see and spend time with him. He came home to Ohio for visits once or twice a year, usually over the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays. I took my kids to visit him at his assigned Air Force Bases a few times over the years. We prepared and sent him care packages when he was deployed to Iraq. Vic sent me care packages when I was stationed in Greece years ago, while he was still a high school student. Reflecting back, I never gave much thought to his short 2-3 day trips home or the seemingly strained nature of the visits. All that changed in May, 2009, however, when my brother was forced to reach out and seek our family's support in the most difficult battle of his life - fighting against his discharge under "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
The revelations that have come to light and emotions evoked throughout the past year have brought a great sense of loss and heartache to our family, not unlike that experienced in grief and death. It saddened me deeply to realize that my single, younger brother could never enjoy a close personal relationship, free from fear of persecution or harassment, throughout his near 20 years serving. His family back home was free to enjoy wonderful family relationships with their spouses and children, but Vic was never to experience that same freedom and privilege while in uniform. I often wonder how alone or lonely he must have felt all those years, especially when he couldn't even share his personal struggles with his very own family.
I recently took the opportunity to ask my brother who he would like us to notify in the event of an emergency or upon his death, after I realized he had no one else to confide in. Most soldiers and airmen have a support system in place, where their spouses or immediate family members are aware of their dying wishes and will share urgent news or handle the appropriate notifications with those closest to their loved one. In my brother's case, I just figured the military would let us know if something happened to him and that no one else aside from his family members needed to be notified, since he was single and has no children.
Under "Don't Ask Don't Tell," the Fehrenbach family has been robbed of truly knowing and loving our brother for who he is for nearly two decades. He chose to serve in silence to protect his own family - the only family he can legally call his own - from potential exposure to investigation under DADT. We can never get those years back. Nor can we accept the damage to and destruction of our family's long-standing military history that will result from Lt. Col. Fehrenbach's discharge under this discriminatory and unjust law. Our family legacy goes back generations, in which our father, mother, grandfathers, spouses, children, uncles and cousins have all answered the call to serve.
Despite all the suffering that Don't Ask Don't Tell has caused my brother and our family, we have reaped a benefit far greater than words can measure. Since I've come to know and understand my brother's true identity, and because he no longer has to hide any part of himself from me, our relationship has become much closer and deeper, where we laugh and share more than ever before. Vic can now be completely open and honest with me - an element that was clearly missing in our lives and relationship in the past. I can't express the immense pleasure I've experienced in getting to know my baby brother --- "Uncle Baldy" as some of our 17 nieces and nephews call him.
In light of the infinite family gains that the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" will yield, I sincerely believe that allowing open service is necessary, right, and just in every sense. Each and every service member deserves the FULL love and support of their family and friends, without fear of persecution, discrimination and harassment. A strong sense of support and love is essential for our troops at all times. It only stands to reason that overall military performance is enhanced and the resolve to accomplish the mission is strengthened by complete and unhindered family bonds.
Sincerely,
Angela Trumbauer
CC: U.S. Sen. Carl M. Levin
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. John S. McCain
Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman
Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Back in the seventies, California passed legislation regarding identification cards that was truly progressive; I personally benefitted from the activism of Californian transsexual women that did work long before I was out of the closet. Transsexual Californians have relatively simple and accomplishable procedures for changing one's gender marker on California state identification cards (which include drivers licenses), and sometimes I find it too easy to take for granted.
Harrisburg: After several months of positive and thoughtful discussion, Equality Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) today announced that they have successfully reached agreement on a change in gender marker policy. "Gender Markers" refer to those ways in which individuals present themselves mostly on official documentation. For example, on a driver's license your "gender marker" would refer to your name and photograph.
"I want to applaud the Department of Transportation for the careful and intelligent way they have handled this discussion," remarked Equality Pennsylvania Executive Director, Ted Martin. "From the very beginning, they recognized what the American Psychological Association, over 25 other states and the U. S. Department of State has been realizing all along; that this just makes sense and is the right thing to do. This simple and cost-free change in policy will make lives better and that's really the most important point in all this."
Under previous policy, transgender individuals looking to be represented on their driver's license as their presenting gender were forced to prove that sexual reassignment surgery had occurred. With the newly adopted policy, transgender citizens of Pennsylvania will be permitted to change the designated gender on their driver's license when they are living full-time in their new gender and it can be verified by a licensed medical or psychological caregiver.
One step forward in Pennsylvania...
...and a step backward is occurring in Michigan's race for Secretary of State. Now two Republican primary candidates for the office have made rolling back transsexual/transgender gender marker policies to one similar to Pennsylvania's recently changed policy. In other words, as we're watching many Republicans on the national stage making a wedge issue of Muslims, at least two Republicans in Michigan have made a wedge issue of transsexual and transgender people. Apparently, we don't have enough minorities in the United States to express despite towards.
I already wrote about Republican Candidate Paul Scott, who in his letter announcing he was running for Secretary of State, he only had four campaign issue talking points -- and trans discrimination was point number three:
There are also policies that I will work to change:
• I will stand strong against illegal immigration by verifying a valid social security number before issuing anyone a driver's license, an issue Representative Dave Agema has been pushing for 3 years.
• I will actively push to encrypt the traceable RFID chip in the enhanced driver's license.
• I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver's license in any circumstance.
• I will work tirelessly to repeal the over $100 million dollar tax increase on drivers in the form of driver responsibility fees.
After traveling around the State the past few months, I have not heard any of the other candidates for Secretary of State addressing the serious issues mentioned above.
Not to be outdone, Republican Candidate for Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, has announced that she too is embracing changing policy for transsexual Michiganites. From the Michigan Messenger's Johnson Takes Hard Right Turn On LGBT Issues In GOP Primary:
Republican candidate for Secretary of State Ruth Johnson has issued a statement denying support for lesbian, gays, bisexuals and transgender people and disavowing her 2002 endorsement by the statewide gay rights group Triangle PAC.
In a move meant to match the political stance of opponent Rep. Paul Scott of Genesee County, Johnson also issued a statement saying, "No I do not support allowing people to change their gender on their license as a result of surgery or lifestyle."
Scott entered the race in February with a great deal of attention on his announcement that he would not allow transgender residents to change their gender markers on their state ID cards.
Julie Nemecek made a comment in the Michigan Messenger article that sums up why this reversal of policy, apparently endorsed by Scott and Johnson, isn't sound policy:
To not allow a transgender person to change their gender marker on a driver's license is to ignore the advice of the AMA [American Medical Association], APA [American Psychological Association], WPATH [World Professional Association for Transgender Health], and other healthcare organizations that understand this medical condition. The U.S. State Department allows changes on a passport even without surgery.
One step backward in Michigan to go with our one step forward in Pennsylvania.
On the state level, we have one state take a step forward regarding gender markers on atate identification cards, and in another state we one step backward in the use of trans people as a wedge issue...specifically regarding gender markers on state identification cards.
It's certainly an interesting time to live as a transgender and/or transsexual person in the United States.
Today I came across a piece that really shows the problem the left and left-center have governing versus campaigning.
The slice of the LGBT blogosphere that has been critical of this President has been chastised early and often by Obama defenders for expressing our disappointment, frustration -- and yes, anger -- at the inaction, slow-go and even no-go behavior regarding LGBT issues. We are all well aware that Barack Obama held our prized issues -- DADT, ENDA, DOMA, etc. -- in high regard and stressed their priority to him when he was on the campaign trail. We also know what has happened in the last two years.
On the day he took office, I switched from campaign cheering mode to fulfilling Obama's request that we "hold him accountable." I take those words and that duty seriously. It's my job as a citizen. Since 2008, I've used the written word to tug at the administration from the left.
I truly respect and admire Obama. I've worked in past campaigns with a number of his staffers. I know they are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. There's no denying that they've racked up an impressive list of accomplishments and they deserve credit for it. But that doesn't mean I should set aside the things I've fought for my entire adult life. It doesn't mean I should stay silent if I think the White House could do a better job promoting a progressive vision. And it doesn't mean I should stand aside if I think mistakes are being made. Sure, I'm just one individual with an opinion, but why the fierce urgency of defending Obama whenever I express it?
Obama told us to hold him accountable (do you think he regrets saying that aloud now?), but we're all apparently struggling with what that means. Obviously, there are plenty of flat-out angry and profane critics, more nuanced ones, and those who fall somewhere in between.
Who is to judge what to take seriously -- or dismiss -- in terms of criticism of this President?
A good number of self-appointed arbiters of what is appropriate criticism and what is productive or not productive populate the comments and show up on Facebook/Twitter to "set the record straight" all the time. But these people are no more qualified to hold an opinion than anyone else. It's just that -- an opinion. Take it or leave it. Certainly the White House does, even if they have thin skin over there.
The real issue is influence, real and perceived. The fact is there are so many blogs/columns out there -- by professional politicos, armchair activists and citizen journalists -- and no real way to know who's reading and being affected by the arguments presented.
That generates fear and paranoia. We've seen a lot of that now, haven't we? Perhaps this is generated by the notion that there are now people of some undetermined influence who really aren't qualified to be influential, either because they:
1) Don't have Beltway experience in a professional capacity with a campaign, org or think tank;
2) Lack sufficient gravitas (not a published author/academic, member of the MSM, etc.);
3) Just aren't part of the DC "A-list" -- a known quantity that is well-connected; or
4) Don't have deep pockets, which gets you into almost any door in DC, regardless of your gravitas rating.
I haven't seen a discussion about this anywhere, have you? I wonder why. I'm sure those conversations go on in meetings all the time, but I like sunshine on topics like this because is a great disinfectant and the Beltway is quite polluted when it comes to shooting straight and basic common sense.
The debate was civil and revealing about the media and its handling of the professional self-outing of Ken Mehlman. John King disclosed that he is friends with Mehlman. Clearly he had some inside knowledge about whether Mehlman just recently came to the conclusion he's gay. Yet as a reporter he failed to engage that topic at all.
KING: I want to read you something, I had a phone conversation with Ken today and I should disclose to our viewers I have known him for a very long time. I consider him to be a friend and a good man. This is what Ken told me earlier today. "When you don't accept a part of your life it makes things unbelievably difficult on all kinds of levels. This is an example of that. Knowing how much I tried to push the envelope in other areas in attracting new constituents to our party, I look back and wish there was something I had done in this area. It was something about my life I was having a hard time accepting then, and I can't change that. What I can do is try to be helpful in the future. I understand people who are going to be angry. I have to look forward and do what I think is right." Go ahead.
SIGNORILE: Well, you know, if somebody is willing to come out and help, I think it's great and we should accept their help and use all of the connections he has, that is terrific. But we cannot sweep under the rug what happened. I spent the day on the radio listening to people tell me about how their lives were destroyed in these campaigns in Arizona, people being forced to move, their neighbors turned against them. In Wisconsin, people's homes defaced, their children attacked. These campaigns were brutal. They used homophobia, they used hate and they used religious bigotry. That needs to be addressed. He needs to be held accountable and history needs to record it. It cannot be swept under the rug.
COOPER: This is being addressed. It is being addressed. Of course it's being addressed. We are talking about it right now. We have moved forward and Ken has actually said himself that he wants to work toward reconciliation. We all recognize, actually Michael just said it, to say as we say in the military, when you add a force, you have a force multiplier. Ken can be a tremendous force multiplier for equality and for advancing civil rights, and I'm very glad that he is now on our team to move it forward. It is very good news. We're very grateful that he's finally reached that point. . But let's move forward. Onward and upward, folks.
Yesterday a study was released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) that estimates that at least 88,500 adults held in U.S. prisons and jails were sexually abused at their current facility in the past year.
What is astonishing is that the Obama DOJ has been studying and reviewing proposals to reduce sexual violence in detention by establishing national standards for staff sexual misconduct for 14 months. Nothing has been finalized and each day more inmates are being raped, harassed and abused while Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't act, defying a congressional deadline set national standards to reduce this criminal activity. Look at what is going on (via Just Detention International):
According to the BJS, 4.4 percent of prison inmates and 3.1 percent of jail inmates reported having experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization by other inmates and/or staff at their current facility in the preceding 12 months. While some suffered a single assault, others were raped repeatedly: on average, victims were abused three to five times over the course of the year. The survey did not include minors held in these facilities, but in a similar BJS report released in January 2010, more than 12 percent of youth in juvenile detention reported sexual abuse, or one in eight.
JDI has testimony of just a few of the egregious cases of abuse.
Inmates with a history of sexual abuse, and those who identify as gay or transgender are exceptionally vulnerable, and JDI hears from such inmates on a daily basis. In another letter received by JDI last week, James, an openly gay prisoner in Michigan who has been raped more than 20 times by numerous inmates over the course of several years, asked, "Do you know what it's like to see their faces each day? Seeing the look they give me? Knowing that they smile and laugh..."
In both men's and women's facilities, staff perpetrators tend to be of the opposite sex from the victim. "Allowing staff unlimited access to inmates of the opposite sex -- including when they are in states of undress -- encourages sexual abuse. Yet, such cross-gender supervision remains standard practice in most U.S. prisons and jails," said Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director of Just Detention International.
Another inmate who wrote to JDI last week, Nathan in Wyoming, described an officer fondling his genitalia while passing out medication. A nurse who observed the groping did nothing, simply stating, "I know I didn't see what I just saw." After reporting the incident, Nathan was transferred to another prison. He has not received information about the outcome of the investigation.
..."Sexual abuse in detention is a stain on our society," said Stannow. "Every day that the Attorney General doesn't finalize the national standards is another day of anguish among prisoner rape survivors, of preventable safety breaches in prisons and jails, and of significant spending of taxpayers' money on medical treatment, investigations, and litigation that could have been avoided."
And what about the standards recommended by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)?
These standards include limitations on cross-gender supervision. They also call for staff training and inmate education, the provision of medical and mental health treatment to sexual abuse victims, and regular independent, external audits to hold agencies accountable for failures to keep inmates safe from abuse. By law, Attorney General Eric Holder had until June 23, 2010 to ratify binding standards, but he missed this deadline and no new date has been set. Once the Attorney General issues final standards, they will be immediately binding on federal facilities. States and localities will have one year to get into compliance or risk losing five percent of their corrections-related federal funding.
And the clock is ticking as the abuse continues...
I've been fond of quoting Bayard Rustin on the job of the gay community. Here's the quote I've often referenced:
"[T]he job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment."
~Bayard Rustin; From Montgomery to Stonewall (1986)
But that paragraph I often quote as a bit before the "[T]" of "[T]he job of the gay community..." -- the whole paragraph is as follows (emphasis added):
There are four burdens, which gays, along with every other despised group, whether it's blacks follow slavery and reconstruction, or Jews fearful of Germany, must address. The first is recognize one must overcome fear. The second is overcoming self-hate. The third is overcoming self-denial. The fourth is more political. It is to recognize that the job of the gay community is not to deal with extremists who would castigate us or put us on an island and drop an H-bomb on us. The fact of the matter is that there is a small percentage of people in America who understand the true nature of the homosexual community. There is another small percentage who will never understand us. Our job is not to get those people who dislike us to love us. Nor was our aim in the civil rights movement to get prejudiced white people to love us. Our aim was to try to create the kind of America, legislatively, morally, and psychologically, such that even though some whites continued to hate us, they could not openly manifest that hate. That's our job today: to control the extent to which people can publicly manifest antigay sentiment.
I'm not so sure. Ken Mehlman seems one of many closeted, and/or recently uncloseted, gay community members to indicate that fear and self-hate -- those characteristics of internalized homophobia -- is alive and well within the gay subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community. And, that those in the leadership of our LGBT civil rights organizations still apparently satisfied to be in the back rooms discussing LGBT issues and sipping cocktails with our nation's politicians, and not dissatisfied enough to privately and publicly demand action on LGBTQ legislation regarding freedom, equality, and justice from our nation's politicians...well, that too seems to indicate that internalized homophobia is alive and well within the gay subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community.
It seems to me too that those who identify as transgender, transsexual, or as both transgender and transsexual, haven't overcome the first three burdens as yet, and are likely significantly further behind the curve that the rest of the LGBTQ community. The trans subcommunity of the LGBTQ community seems to have an awful lot of internalized transphobia within its members. As a group, we seem more than a bit bitter and angry too.
So, what are your thoughts on the four burdens? Do you believe LGBTQ community has significantly overcome the first three burdens?
Many black leaders oppose the comparisons between the African-American civil rights movement and the gay rights movement. But few are as vehemently opposed to the comparison as Martin Luther King Jr's niece, Alveda King.
However, as her recent behavior demonstrates, it could be that Alveda King doesn't like the so-called appropriation of the black civil rights movement because it hones in on her action.
Witness her comments in defense of her joining Glenn Beck's 8-28 rally which will be held 47 years to the date of the 1963 March on Washington which featured Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech:
"It is absolutely ludicrous that abortion supporters would accuse a blood relative of Dr. King of hijacking the King legacy. Uncle Martin and my father, Rev. A. D. King were blood brothers. How can I hijack something that belongs to me? I am an heir to the King Family legacy."
Alveda King's statements in this press release (which is titled Pro-Abortion Blacks Attack Heir to King Legacy) isn't the first time she claimed that "blood" entitles her to be an "heir to the King legacy."
Last month, during an anti-gay marriage rally, she said pretty much the same thing during a verbal attack on her late aunt, Coretta Scott King. Her exact words then were:
She (Coretta) was married to him (Martin Luther King, Jr.). I've got his DNA. She doesn't.
Alveda King's constant yammering that the "King blood flows through her veins" reminds me of Saturday Night Live comedian Tracy Morgan's hilarious send-up of Star Jones on The View in which he would constantly pepper the conversations in various skits with assurances that his character was a lawyer in an effort to lampoon questions of Jones's relevancy.
Porterville, California. I don't want to paint all of its residents with a broad brush, so I'll share some demographic information here:
Porterville is a city in the San Joaquin Valley, in Tulare County, California, United States. The population was 39,615 at the 2000 census. City limit signs currently have the population at 51,467. The city's population grew dramatically as the city annexed many properties and unincorporated areas in and around Porterville. Porterville is considered part of the Census Bureau's designation of the Visalia-Porterville metropolitan statistical area.
...The racial makeup of the city was 49.75% White, 1.28% African American, 1.73% Native American, 4.63% Asian, 0.15% Pacific Islander, 32.71% from other races, and 4.75% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 54.45% of the population.
And look at this:
In the state legislature Porterville is located in the 18th Senate District, represented by Republican Roy Ashburn, and in the 34th Assembly District, represented by Republican Connie Conway. Federally, Porterville is located in California's 21st congressional district, which has a Cook PVI of R +13[3] and is represented by Republican Devin Nunes.
Yes, that Roy Ashburn. The Republican who was caught with an "unidentified man" in the car after leaving faces, Faces, the gay bar Ashburn frequented, and arrested for DUI? He had a 100% anti-gay voting record before this dragged him out of the closet. He later, as these storylines usually play out, figured out that voting anti-gay because his constituents are homophobes was not the right thing to do:
"I would not have been speaking on a measure dealing with sexual orientation ever prior to the events that have transpired in my life over the last three months," Ashburn told his colleagues. "However, I am no longer willing or able to remain silent on issues that affect sexual orientation and the rights of individuals. And so I am doing something that is quite different and foreign to me, and it's highly emotional."
The tragic and destructive spread of homosexuality across the country is a major evil of our time. The John Birch society reported that thousands of boys per year are stolen from their parents to feed homosexual pornography.
I recommend that American citizens study anti-homosexual books available at Christian book stores. And to read anti-homosexual books which are out of print.
W. Cleon Skousen in 1958, wrote a warning about the communist conspiracy. The book was called, "The Naked Communist." The book warned that the communists would set out to turn America into a moral cesspool, including corrupting America with rampart homosexuality, flooding America with pornography and sexual anarchy, and thereby seeking to destroy the family institution.
Not every homosexual is a communist, but every communist supports the militant homosexual war against mankind. Why? Because it attacks the family. Homosexuality, as well as every kind of heterosexual immorality, is a destroyer of freedom.
Many homosexuals are basically decent men and women who took a wrong turn. The gospel of Jesus Christ says satan is the prompter of all sexual immorality, including homosexual perversion therefore homosexuality is wickedness. Society should be protected from it.
Sam Usher
Porterville
We have a long way to go, even if the law tilts to our side one day. The homobigotry doesn't go away even if laws protect your rights. Racism surely hasn't disappeared.
And that's why Republicans like Roy Ashburn and Ken Mehlman need to not only come out of the closet, but use their votes, power and money to stop feeding the bigotry and ignorance of people like this unfortunate man. You cannot fight for equality by electing low-tax, small-government homophobes. You have to draw a moral line somewhere when it comes to party and principles.
P.S. - And that goes for Dems too. We've seen what electing Blue Dogs does for passing civil rights legislation.
I don't know whether to laugh at or feel sorry for the folks at the Family Research Council. Honcho Tony Perkins and his crew are so desperate to try to stop repeal of DADT that they have resorted to some sort of gay "Night of the Living Dead" scare tactic to stop the Senate from a vote on the repeal language in the def auth bill. As Joe Sudbay says:
Poll after poll shows strong support for the repeal of DADT. We've even got hard core right-winger Liz Cheney on our side. But, the gay-obsessed Family Research Council is undaunted. Those right-wingers are on the air with an ad attacking Harry Reid over DADT repeal. Actually, it attacks "HARRY REID and HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS." The ad looks like something produced for local cable back in the disco era.
***
In other DADT news, check out Servicemembers United's memo about that ridiculous spouses survey. Here are just a couple of the points made in the document.
The survey is an insult to military families and military spouses.
Just as the assumption that the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would be problematic for straight troops is an insult to the professionalism of straight troops, so to is the assumption that the law's repeal would be problematic for families an insult to military families and military spouses. The assumption that spouses and families might be ill-prepared to handle such a simple and long-overdue policy change insults their own professionalism, their generation's non-discriminatory values, their unique ability to handle diversity, and their battle-hardened ability to handle any changes that the military throws their way.
Question 24: "Assume Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you live in on-base housing. If a gay or lesbian Service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay on-base or would you try to move out?
This is one of the more egregious examples of a question containing derogatory assumptions and insinuations about gay and lesbian Americans. First, the question does not belong in a survey on the potential impact of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" to begin with because repeal does not create federal recognition of same-sex marriages - a requirement for qualification for on-base family housing. Troops with partners, girlfriends, or boyfriends, even if long-term, are not given on-base housing. This question is both misleading of the survey taker, in that it suggests that repeal would permit gay and lesbian couples to live in on-base housing, and wholly unnecessary in a survey on the impact of repeal, because this scenario would not be a result of repeal. In addition to the above, this question also extremely offensive in nature. The question is undoubtedly rooted in the outrageous and antiquated assumption that gays and lesbians are predatory and that having gays and lesbians in your neighborhood is something to be concerned about, especially for the sake of children. The ironic thing about this question is that the suggested alternative is to move offbase, where there really is a likelihood that a family might reside beside a gay or lesbian couple, unlike in an on-base community.about.
Who's surprised - no one, really, but the fact that Faux News Channel cannot find a way to slant Ken Mehlman's coming out in an appropriate wingnut fashion for its base really shows you how pathetic it is as a propaganda machine. FAIL.
Credit to Igor Volsky at Think Progress, for holding back a "ROTFLOL" in his post, that includes a quote from MC Steele:
It's unclear why Fox News ignored the story, since some Republicans have embraced Mehlman's coming out. Current Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, for instance, issued a supportive statement: "His announcement, often a very difficult decision which is only compounded when done on the public stage, reaffirms for me why we are friends and why I respect him personally and professionally." Mehlman has also said that President Bush has been "incredibly supportive" of his coming out.
Ignoring stories which undermine conservative causes, however, is the norm at Fox. Earlier this month, Fox News refused to run a single segment on Dr. Laura Schlessinger's racially-charged rant, after which she resigned from talk radio.
Don't miss the Faith and Freedom Conference and Strategy Briefing in Washington, D.C., September 9-11 in Washington, DC. This will be an exciting weekend of featured speakers, networking and training workshops as we prepare for the November elections. You will hear a who's who of conservative champions. Invited speakers include: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and many more! Space is limited, so register today!
It's too bad that Huck and Palin haven't confirmed their attendance. I guess Ralph will continue to hawk their names since the long list of confirmed extra special guests are the usual suspects. See those below the fold.
Social conservatives cannot be played as fools by the Republican Party. They are not "useful idiots." If Republican leaders abandon social conservatives and the party platform, then they will face the same kind of disaster they could be facing if Tea Partiers abandon the GOP -- Millions of social conservatives will either stay home, or will vote for a third-party candidate who takes up the mantle of marriage, life, faith and family.
...If the GOP splits either over economic issues or over social issues, then President Obama could be reelected with as little as 40% of the vote.
Think that sounds preposterous? It's happened before in American politics, with 1912 as a perfect example. The year 2012 will be the 100-year anniversary of when a Republican split gave America a Democratic president.
If Republicans flinch on marriage, America could have eight years of President Obama.
Marriage, involving Texas and women who've had genital reconstruction surgery -- which I'll identify for the purposes of this piece as transsexual women -- are at the center of a legal question: Which will be the Texas same-sex marriage? -- Nikki Araguz's or Sabrina Hill's marriage?.
Beginning with the Houston Chronicle's Legal Chaos Reigns In Same-Sex Unions, Maria C. Gonzalez discusses same-sex marriage, and does it mostly in regards to Nikki Araguz marriage. When I spoke to Professor Gonzalez about her commentary, she told me the header she submitted for her piece was A Plea For The Dignity Of Private Dysfunction. She didn't title the piece with regards to same-sex marriage, but an editor for the Houston Chronicle retitled it.
Professor Gonzalez began her piece this way:
Many Texans are so afraid of gay, lesbian, bisexual and especially transgender persons that what would be simple probate matters to others turn into media fodder for us.
The Nikki Araguz case going on in Wharton County is another example of how the systematic disenfranchisement of members of my community has turned one woman's private pain into a very public indignity. Firefighter Thomas Araguz died, and his wife and children would normally receive his death benefits. Perhaps like many in-laws who do not approve of their children's choice of spouse, Araguz's parents do not want their daughter-in-law to receive anything. They have hired a lawyer who is using a 1999 San Antonio appeals court case, Littleton v. Prange, to argue that Nikki Araguz was not Thomas Araguz's wife because there was no marriage. Littleton held that even if one's gender has been surgically corrected, one nonetheless remains the gender identified on his/her birth certificate. In other words, Littleton says that gender cannot be legally changed for the purposes of marriage.
Many transwomen and transmen in Texas are married to their partners, many of whose birth certificates reflect the same gender as their spouses. In El Paso, a same-sex couple recently requested a marriage license. These two women have presented appropriate documents with birth certificates showing that one of them was identified as male at birth.
The request has been forwarded to Attorney General Greg Abbott for a ruling. Not surprisingly, Abbott has avoided controversy by delaying his ruling pending an outcome in the Wharton County case. This is a no-win case for Abbott, whose supporters overwhelmingly oppose both same sex and transgender marriage....
That second woman would be Sabrina Hill. In that case, Sabrina Hill was denied marriage to another woman because she is a post-surgical, male-to-female transsexual. She attempted to obtain a marriage license to marry another woman, based on the Judgment of the Texas Appeals Court in the Case of Littleton v. Prange. But, as Professor Gonzalez found, the Attorney General in Texas is unwilling to take a position on whether Sabrina Hill's marriage would be an opposite-sex or same-sex marriage.
The courts are going to decide what sex and gender is in Texas, and either Nikki Araguz or Sabrina Hill is going to end up with a marriage that is declared a same-sex marriage.
If the 2009 Texas statue Texas Fam. § 1.102, Chapter 2 -- which states {as modified by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 978, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009 (H.B. No. 3666)} -- that for a marriage license application, one way proof of eligibility for a planned marriage may be established is by "an original or certified copy of a court order relating to the applicant's name change or sex change," -- well, then we are where we are now: in limbo. We're in a Texas courtroom deciding whether someone is male or female for purposes of marriage, and that decision will effect many, many other transsexual people in Texas.
Weighing in on this in relationship to LGBT community is Phyllis Frye -- Nikki Araguz's attorney. Frye herself is identified as both transsexual and transgender; Her website is www.transgenderlegal.com.
"Why is it that the Prop 8, same-sex marriage fight in CA and the DOMA same-sex marriage fight in the Northeast are BOTH so well funded by lesbian and gay groups and lesbian and gay individuals, but the same-sex marriage fight in Texas has been thus far supported ONLY by a small number of mostly transgenders plus three LGBT-allied churches, mostly in Houston, all in Texas?
"Where is the same national support given for the L and G same-sex marriage struggles?" she added. "Has it remained nonexistent for over six weeks now because this Texas fight is insignificantly and merely a 'tranny' same-sex marriage fight, so who nationally gives a shit? Then are we a National LGBT-inclusive community, but NOT when it comes to financing the 'tranny' same-sex marriage fights? From here, it seems to me - still - that the national L and G groups and the big bucks L and G attitudes haven't really changed very much. FOLKS, IT IS TIME YOU FIGURED IT OUT THAT THE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE FIGHT IS JUST AS MUCH A TRANSGENDER FIGHT AS IT IS A LESBIAN, GAY AND BISEXUAL FIGHT."
Okay, if I were wording Phyllis Frye's e-blast, I would have used the language "marriage equality" instead of "same-sex marriage" because her client doesn't see her marriage to her husband as a same-sex marriage. But, Frye's overall point on LGBT donors and LGBT organizations is still worth noting.
As far as I can tell, no national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) non-profit organization has weighed in on the marriage issues revolving around the specific cases of Nikki Araguz and Sabrina Hill, and Frye would know better than me if any LGBT big donor or non-profit organization has contributed to Nikki Araguz's legal defense fund.
It's an eerie silence from LGBT community, for sure. This is especially true considering how many trans people I know have worked both in front of the room and behind the scenes on marriage equality -- especially here in my own home state with regards to Prop 8.
In the meantime, if Littleton v. Prague is still the standard on sex and gender for marriage purposes in Texas, then the court ruling on Nikki Araguz's probate case will again highlight how post-operative transsexuals have a Loving v. Virginia issue regarding the fundamental right to marry -- an issue of their marriages annulled at state lines. That's because, as New Jersey's M.T. v. J.T. showed us, different states apply different standards to transsexuals regarding sex and gender, and crossing state lines can result in a transsexual's marriage becoming a heterosexual marriage or a same-sex marriage.
In the meantime too, we're still left with the legal question: Which will be the Texas same-sex marriage? -- Nikki Araguz's or Sabrina Hill's marriage?
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, who published the Ken-Mehlman-outs-himself article, had a live question time on the site today and some of the questions and answers were interesting. I managed to get one in.
Pam Spaulding: Hi Marc, thanks for your report on Mehlman. Two questions -- 1. Do you plan a follow up with him? He expresses his regret regarding his role in the 2004 campaign that resulted in 11 marriage amendments passing and speaks of supporting marriage equality. I'm interested in whether he supports also supports ENDA, DOMA repeal, as well as DADT repeal and UAFA (immigration reform related to binational LGBT couples). Question 2: Does Mehlman have a comment about his 2009/2010 donations to anti-gay pols, including Roy Blunt, John McCain, Mark Kirk; Rob Portman, Bob Corker, Richard Shelby, etc?
Marc Ambinder: Thanks Pam. Good to chat with you. I've spoken to Ken since the article came out, and he was not willing to answer any more questions. I definitely want to talk with him about this subject in granular detail. What did he know about Rove's strategy to put the marriage amendments on the ballots? He told me that he regrets the fact that he wasn't ready to admit to anyone that he was a supporter of gay rights. He wouldn't go beyond that. As for the donations, Mehlman told me that he remains a proud Republican and does not think gay marriage should be a litmus test issue. At this point, his identity as a Republican is more fully formed than his identity as a gay person, if that makes sense. Over time, it may change.
Pam Spaulding: Thanks, Marc. I believe that Mehlman has a lot of thinking to do about his support of anti-gay pols if he on the other hand says his desire is to work for equality. He can't square that with placing people in power committed to working against it.
And there was this exchange:
Aaron: How do you account for the media's different treatment of Mehlman and Judge Vaughn Walker? Mehlman's sexuality was well known for years (even if he denied it), but CNN censored Bill Maher acknowledging this on Larry King Live. By contrast, Walker (who has never come out) was outed by several media sources including CNN following the Prop 8 trial verdict. It seems like the media has a double standard in this area and is willing to patrol the closet for some people but not for others.
Marc Ambinder: People were suspicious of Mehlman's sexuality for years. Who knew? The people who "knew" are the people who Ken had sex with. But Ken says he had sex with no one, and told no one, because he didn't want to tell anyone, because he was uncomfortable with that part of his life. I don't doubt that Bill Maher thought that Ken was gay, but how could he know? I haven't found a single person who says that Ken outed himself to them earlier. I've found several people -- including reporters who asked him -- who Ken lied to about his sexual orientation. Gaydar exists. It's possible, and probable, that many gay people (and straight people) pegged Ken as gay before Ken was willing to face up to the fact himself. But that's a far cry from saying that anyone "knew" anything and covered it up. If I outed everyone I suspected was gay, I'd be a bad person, firstly, and very very busy, secondly.
Aaron: Mike Rogers had a number of sources years earlier, and of course he has now been proven right: http://blog.blogactive.com/2004/11/take-action-.... Mike does solid reporting, but most other media outside the LGBT press either ignores it, or actively works to suppress it (as in the CNN Bill Maher interview).
You also didn't address the half of my question about Walker. There isn't any more evidence of that than there was for Mehlman, and yet the media was willing (almost eager) to out him.
Kerry Eleveld landed an interview with the freshly self-outed former head of the RNC and Bush 2004 campaign Ken Mehlman and she gets down to brass tacks about his personal life in the closet and his professional participation in the fight to socially demonize and legally demean LGBTs. I'll share a couple of questions; it's a lengthy interview worth the click.
There's a lot of gays and lesbians and other people who are still angry about the 2004 election and the fact that that those 11 amendments were on the ballot. Is there anything that you would like to say about that in particular?
Look, I have a lot of friends who ask questions and who are angry about it. I understand that folks are angry, I don't know that you can change the past. As I've said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn't in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can't change that - it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.
But I understand the anger and I talk to friends about it - it's something that I hear from a number of friends.
As the strategy developed, did it ever make you uncomfortable? Yes.
There were a lot of people, including people that supported the [Federal Marriage Amendment], for example, that worried about this being divisive.
I obviously found it particularly challenging to deal with and, because I wasn't in the place I am today where I'm comfortable with this part of my life, it was really hard and it was particularly hard because there was really nobody who knew this about me and so there was no one I could even talk to about it. So it was a period that I'm very glad is over.
It's not clear to me that he realizes the depth of destruction he caused in 2004 that we are now fighting back from.
Kerry also asks Mehlman about his general gay conservative philosophy (the "not a single issue" matter), and the direction of the GOP.
I think like a lot of people, there are a lot issues that are important to me - free enterprise and lower taxes and less regulation, a strong national defense, education reform, immigration reform - these are all things that are important to me. [Marriage equality] is also an issue that's important to me, but I'm someone that tries to find the totality of the issues and support candidates based on the totality of the issues.
...And from the perspective of, what I care the most about, first, and second of all, someone who's trying to build support in the party for these issues - or at least discourage opposition - I think that's a good thing.
That was an unsurprising answer. He -- and we -- have to reckon with a slice of the LGBT population that may in fact weigh party over equality in their support for candidates in some cases. How do we handle that reality? As we noted yesterday, Mehlman still opened his wallet this year for anti-gay pols. The natural follow up to Kerry's question is whether he would change his mind in the future and weigh equality issues with more importance when an virulently anti-gay pol comes knocking for dough. Only time will tell.
For another take on this, I point you to Steven Petrow, the past president of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, who has a piece up at Huff Po, "In Defense of Ken Mehlman: Former GOP Chair is no Roy Cohn." An excerpt is below the fold, as well as my thoughts.
With Michelle Obama's charge to combat childhood obesity, all eyes are on commercially prepared foods that are possible contributors to our roly-poly youth. Manufacturers of high-fat, high-sugar foods are now hot to boost their nutritional profiles to justify their existence in the cupboards of today's family.
So it was no surprise when I started seeing commercials touting colorful, sugar-laden breakfast cereals traditionally aimed at kids -- Trix, Cocoa Puffs, and of course, Lucky Charms -- to say they are "Whole Grain Guaranteed," suggesting they are a significant source of fiber and wholesome goodness.
Dear General Ham and Mr. Johnson:
Today I came across a piece that really shows the problem the left and left-center have governing versus campaigning.
On the day he took office, I switched from campaign cheering mode to fulfilling Obama's request that we "hold him accountable." I take those words and that duty seriously. It's my job as a citizen. Since 2008, I've used the written word to tug at the administration from the left.
Yesterday 
Another inmate who wrote to JDI last week, Nathan in Wyoming, described an officer fondling his genitalia while passing out medication. A nurse who observed the groping did nothing, simply stating, "I know I didn't see what I just saw." After reporting the incident, Nathan was transferred to another prison. He has not received information about the outcome of the investigation.
Yes, that Roy Ashburn
I don't know whether to laugh at or feel sorry for the folks at the Family Research Council. Honcho Tony Perkins and his crew are so desperate to try to stop repeal of DADT that they have resorted to some sort of gay "Night of the Living Dead" scare tactic to stop the Senate from a vote on the repeal language in the def auth bill. As 
Who's surprised - no one, really, but the fact that Faux News Channel cannot find a way to slant Ken Mehlman's coming out in an appropriate wingnut fashion for its base really shows you how pathetic it is as a propaganda machine. FAIL.
in his post, that includes a quote from MC Steele:
Social conservatives cannot be played as fools by the Republican Party. They are not "useful idiots." If Republican leaders abandon social conservatives and the party platform, then they will face the same kind of disaster they could be facing if Tea Partiers abandon the GOP -- Millions of social conservatives will either stay home, or will vote for a third-party candidate who takes up the mantle of marriage, life, faith and family.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, who published the 
Kerry Eleveld landed an interview
