"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.
For those of us who don't watch Glee or The Jersey Shore much, we might have missed the use of the pejorative tranny (which will henceforth be referred to as tra**y in the rest of the piece) being used in both shows.
The show's inclusion of the word "tra**y" was made all the more confusing by the decision to change the word "transsexual" to "sensational" in the song "Sweet Transvestite." As many commentators have pointed out, it seems strange that Fox would want the word "transsexual" cut from a well known song, but find "tra**y" acceptable.
This inclusion of this slur is particularly alarming given last season's powerful episode in which Kurt's father chastised Finn for using the word "f*g." That episode sent a powerful message to the show's young fan base that words have power and they can hurt.
Jersey Shore was a far worse example of transphobia, in that it was real people making bigoted, derogatory comments about trans people while using the pejorative tra**y. From glaadBLOG's MTV Airs Disturbing Transphobic Jersey Shore Reunion Special:
MTV's hit reality show Jersey Shore featured one of the most blatant examples of transphobia seen on television during its Reunion Special Thursday night.
The offending incident began with a montage of clips from a previous episode, in which Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino is shown flirting with an unidentified club patron, followed by his castmates repeatedly claiming the person was "a tra**y," and that "if you have to think about it, it's a tra**y. Stay away."
However the instance was made much worse by both the show's host and producers, who intercut with shots of cast member Ronnie Ortiz-Magro wearing a dress and MTV's own footage of a large man in a bikini and a Halloween mask in an attempt to add more "humorous" context. Host Julissa Bermudez started off the interview segment by making fun of Ronnie for wearing a dress, and asking Mike Sorrentino, "Who was that tra**y?! What was up with that?!"
The segment can be seen here and the full episode is here. WARNING: This video is extremely offensive.
We appreciate GLAAD voicing concern about the "Jersey Shore" reunion special. The segment in question was certainly not meant to be insensitive, but in retrospect we realize that it was offensive to some viewers. We sincerely apologize.
GLAAD's comments on both shows was in alignment with it's mission statement, which states:
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) amplifies the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality.
SodaHead actually has a poll up on their question, which was posed by someone on their staff. The three answers to their pole question are 1.) No, there was nothing wrong with it; 2.) Yes, that was offensive; and 3.) Undecided. As of 12:30 PM PDT, seventy-five SodaHead voters thought there is nothing wrong with using the term tra**y, while thirty-nine voters thought the term is offensive -- twenty-five voters were undecided.
Media outlets wouldn't be asking if the n-word is offensive to African-Americans; we wouldn't be asking if the b-word or the c-word is offensive to women; we wouldn't be asking if the-other-f-word is offensive to gays. Somehow though, Entertainment Weekly, Inside Blip, and SodaHead believe phrasing a headline to ask if a antitransgender term is really offensive when used in television shows is acceptable behavior on their parts. And bisarrely, Inside Blip indicates in the text of their article that it's not the responsibility of Glee to point out that the term tra**y is seen by many trans people as offensive -- That somehow this is appropriate commentary in a climate where anti-LGBT school bulling has become a national issue.
Darren Franich appears to speak from cluelessness regarding trans community in his Entertainment Weekly commentary, where he stated:
[C]an we meet in the middle somewhere? Do you think that "tra**y" is a bad word? More to the point, do you think that Glee's use of the word was offensive?
I'm sure I'm not the only trans person who believes "No, we can't meet in the middle; yes, tra**y is a bad word; yes, Glee's use of the word was offensive." Did Franich or Entertainment Weekly even reach out to transgender activists before posting that statement? Somehow I doubt it.
I am aware that there are drag performers that use the term tra**y to refer to themselves, and I am aware that there are transgender-identified people who use the term tra**y to refer to themselves, often working to reclaim the word just as many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community work to reclaim the word queer. But just because some African-Americans use others in their community by the n-word, and just because many women refer to themselves by the b-word...Well, that doesn't mean white Americans should use the n-word to refer to African-Americans, and doesn't mean that men should be referring to women by the b-word. Pejoratives such as the n-word, the b-word, and the-other-f-word are used to dehumanize people; so is the word tra**y.
And, there is doubt that as the term tra**y as used on Glee and The Jersey Shore, was meant as a derogatory, dehumanizing term -- which is why the GLAAD Media Reference Guide refers to the term tra**y (along with a few other terms) this way...
These words only serve to dehumanize transgender people and should not be used.
It's bad enough that tra**y was used as a dehumanizing term in these two television shows, but having a few websites put that term up for a vote -- a vote as to whether or not the term is a pejorative and/or offensive -- is just incredibly insensitive to trans community. And, it indicates that these websites feel they should be able to dictate to trans community which words are antitransgender pejoratives and which terms are not.
So let's let the non-transgender people in society decide which terms offend trans people and which do not because, of course, trans people are too ignorant, too inferior, and too stupid to recognize for themselves what terms are used as antitransgender pejoratives...right?
[Below the fold: Responding to the usual derailments of posts on antitransgender pejoratives -- especially tra**y -- before the derailing begins.]
People for the American Way gives us a primer on the nutbags, yahoos and fringe tools who have some how convinced enough voters that they deserve to have the power to pass legislation affecting millions. Meet The New Freshman Class of Extremist Senators. Learn more about them in the Rogue's Gallery.
In PFAW's latest video after the 2010 elections, we introduce the new class of extremist Senators that will arrive in Washington in January.
You might recall that back in September, I blogged that I had to make a quick trip to NYC because I was selected to be part of a photo shoot and feature for Interview magazine's November issue. It's on newstands now.
The article is called "Stand Up for Your Rights: activists, organizers and political voices" -- it doesn't appear to be on Interview's web site yet, though portions of the issue are up. The project is the brainchild of photographer David Mushegain and Dustin Lance Black, Academy Award winner for Best Original Screenplay in 2009 for "Milk," and board member of the American Foundation for Equal Rights.
From Dustin Lance Black's introduction:
Back in 1973, Harvey Milk said something that's become one of my favorite quotes: "Masturbation can be fun, but it does not take the place of the real thing. It is about time that the gay community stopped playing with itself and get down to the real thing."
From long-time organizer David Mixner's bold call for a march on Washington in May 2009, to fellow activists Jones and Robin McGehee's answer to that call in the face of Congressional opposition later that year; from openly gay serviceman Dan Choi chaining himself to the White House in March and April, to the American Foundation For Equal Rights' move to fight Prop 8 at the federal level, rejecting the self-loathing sentiments behind a piecemeal approach, it's clear the gay movement is shifting back Milk's way.
In short, the LGBTQ movement is doing what no other movement has previously done. It's emerged from a corporate culture and given birth to a new grass roots. But how can this new energy be captured in images or words? Inherent in the term grass roots is the notion that there is no single leader or prevailing philosophy. Instead, there are thousands of voices with differing points of view and strategies, often speaking in opposition to one another and occasionally at each other's throats. (Lord knows I've got the bite marks to prove it.) But it's these disagreements that are making this movement strong again.
In a country as diverse as this one, it's going to take a multitude of approaches and voices working concurrently and aggressively to win full equality in our lifetimes. And yes, I want to get married before I die, but more important than that, none of us want to see another LGBT kid grow up being told he or she is less of a person - or deserves fewer rights - than anyone else. So let me be clear, in no way do these profiles define the new grass roots. It would take an encyclopedia to do that. These are simply some of the new grass roots, representing thousands just like them, and hopefully inspiring more men and women to take singular stands or to form their own bottom-up organizations to take on city hall or the United States Supreme Court. Because the new gay movement isn't playing with itself anymore. It's after the real thing again.
Also featured in the piece are Dan Choi, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, Robin McGehee of GetEqual, Chad Griffin of AFER, Cleve Jones, activist David Mixner, actor Alan Cumming and other newsmaking members of the LGBT community.
As always, I feel humbled by being included with so many people who are making an impact on LGBT equality; it's not always clear to me that what I do online (knowing that I am standing in for LGBT citizen journalists/Cheetos-stained, PJ-wearing bloggers in this piece) is meaningful. Sometimes it can have an impact - by extending the voice of non-professional LGBTs to the ears of those with access. Other times you do feel like you're shouting into a void and cannot effect change precisely because we don't have direct access to power. I don't think there's any single answer to the question of how we impact the movement. I give it a bit of a shot in this article (the text of mine is after the jump),
As you can see by the photo (I'm on page 101 with Gavin Creel of Broadway Impact and Constance McMillan), I don't look like my normal blogmistress self -- no glasses, in a form-fitting wool dress, and wistfully, about 15 lbs lighter than I am now. That's because I've had to boost my insulin levels prior to surgery, and it puts the weight on quickly (thankfully it's leveled off and not still increasing at the present time). Sigh. Hopefully back to the weight loss after the alien uterus is ripped out in a couple of weeks.
Below the fold, amusing background on the photo shoot and a larger version of that photo with the full text.
Didn't see this coming. Dan Woods, partner at White & Case, the firm representing the Log Cabin Republicans have asked the Supreme Court of the United States to consider reversing the stay imposed on Judge Virginia Field's worldwide injunction of the military's implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.
From the Log Cabin Republican's press release:
Dan Woods, White & Case "We have today filed an application with the United States Supreme Court asking it to vacate the Ninth Circuit's order staying Judge Phillips's injunction pending appeal. We argue in this application that the Ninth Circuit order was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion and should be vacated immediately. We continue to look forward to the day when all Americans can serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation," said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans.
Q: Will the entire Supreme Court be involved in considering whether to vacate the Ninth Circuit order? A: That is up to Justice Kennedy. He may decide himself or he may refer the application to the full court.
Q: How long will the review take? A: That is also up to the court. The Court may allow the government the opportunity to respond to our application.
Q: What are the next steps if the Court vacates the ruling/doesn't vacate the ruling? A: If the Court vacates the stay order, DADT is dead pending the appeal, and we have for all inteappeal from Judgnts and purposes won. If it doesn't, we will next move in the Ninth Circuit to expedite the e Phillips's decision.
Now THAT's Fierce Advocacy.
R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director, Log Cabin Republicans "It is unfortunate the Obama Justice Department has forced the Log Cabin Republicans to go to the Supreme Court."
News network MSNBC has suspended host Keith Olbermann indefinitely after a news report stated he donated to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates.
Mediaite quotes MSNBC President Phil Griffin as saying, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 - the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann's "Countdown" show.
Grijalva, a prominent liberal who was just declared a winner in his race Thursday night, was in a tight contest against tea-party-backed candidate Ruth McClung when he appeared on "Countdown" - one of several appearances he made on the show.
NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions - considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover
What have I been saying about hair relaxers for the longest time? That sh*te is toxic and yet women with kinky hair put themselves through burned scalps, headaches and god knows what else to rid themselves (and sadly, even their little girls) of the hair texture they were born with.
AS more women began clamoring for the latest sensation in hair care, the so-called Brazilian hair-relaxing treatments, the Neil George Salon in Beverly Hills, Calif., added a cabana with open sides and a fabric roof to isolate the process from the salon itself. "I couldn't stand the fumes," said Neil Weisberg, an owner.
Mark Garrison, the owner of a salon on the Upper East Side of Manhattan that bears his name, set aside a floor for the treatment, equipped it with special ventilators and began providing industrial-strength respirators to his clients and stylists. And a West Hollywood salon, John Frieda, relegated its straightening treatments to an open-air courtyard.
Just like the permanents that were once the height of fashion, the lucrative process of converting frizzy or kinky hair into smooth locks produces unpleasant odors. But is it dangerous, especially to the operators who apply the product repeatedly?
Last month, the beauty world was rattled when the occupational health agency in Oregon found significant levels of formaldehyde in the hair-smoothing solution sold under the name Brazilian Blowout. (A common ingredient found in many products, formaldehyde is a recognized carcinogen if it is present at high levels.) The agency said it had conducted lab tests after receiving numerous complaints from stylists citing nosebleeds, breathing problems and eye irritation after applying the product.
The fact is, whether it's this Brazilian toxic hair straightening agent or the crap you by for $7.99 in a drug store, when you open the jar and slap the creamy crack on your hair, it STINKS AND IT BURNS. No way around it. In a beauty business where women of color drop an inordinate amount on money on hair procedures and products - we're talking a $9 billion-dollar industry, there's too much money to be made off of the backs of women who feel that chemically straightened hair (and that's not the same as straight natural hair, mind you) is the only way to achieve beauty or professional success. And some professions, it's still not going to put you on the fast track if you don't bend to the Euro beauty standard.
But let's just say that salons with these toxic product offerings don't have the health of women in mind. Bottom line:
Yet for many salon owners and stylists, who are usually independent contractors, it is hard to contemplate eliminating such a profitable procedure. "It's one of the most popular services we've had in years," said the salon owner John Barrett. "People think it's an absolute godsend." ...Prices generally start at about $250 and can go as high as $700 in some salons.
Really, sisters. Is it worth it?
UPDATE: These vintage relaxer ads are both entertaining and sad. Notice the older ones feature light-skinned women (many may not have had kinky hair to begin with), and ones as you head toward the later 60s you see darker-skinned women, including this model who favors the image of Diahann Carroll's Julia, TV's first black female character who was in a profession other than as someone's maid or servant (and even Beulah didn't have kinky hair).
And below the fold, the brothers were also told that "the conk" was the way to professional success.
Per usual, Rachel Maddow destroys conservative lies. It bothers me just a bit that while all these reasons why the Democrats got swamped in the mid terms are floating around, very few are calling attention to the right-wing echo chamber which ratcheted up the lies against Obama and the Democrats, thereby scaring Americans and exploiting covert prejudices against Obama.
Saying "that's just how politics is" is a cop-out. Strangely enough, the same people who always claim about how sick they are with Washington or how Washington is broken seems to always be silent when it comes to calling lies out. You can't defeat a disease without naming it.
And don't even get me started on Fox News. The fact that for the first time in history, a political party has an entire "news" network - the number one news network at that - in its back pocket and pushing its agenda seems to escape everyone. This is a shame because it's significant. And ironic. The clarion call against Obama seems to be that he is a dictator and runs a regime.
Who's more of a product of a "regime?" President Obama or a network fueling a political party?
Lastly, the lgbt community really needs to pay attention to this because there is a case to be made - which I will get into later - in how the campaign of lies against Obama and the Democrats are similar to the campaign of lies the religious right wages against us.
How sad is it that those who market in lies can borrow from one another, but those engaged in truth and progressive ideas can't. Or rather don't.
I spent the morning working to develop a training for the directors of some local senior centers about the unique challenges faced by LGBT elders. One of the most telling experiences about folks who are currently in their 50s or older is that they dealt with coming out at a time when homosexuality was still considered a mental disorder.
Thus, when thinking about serving this population, it's easy to think that it's only been since 1973 that those 81 words were removed from the DSM. That's less than 40 years that our understanding of sexual orientation has not seen as disorder and malfunction. That's barely one generation.
At the same time, it is one generation. It's also easy to step back and realize that that's almost 40 years that we've known better. From my perspective, that was 12 years before I was born that people had it figured out. And yet, 37 years later, some people still haven't figured it out.
That's why this weekend is committed to rebelling against that aging myth. NARTH will be having their annual conference in Philadelphia, a weekend of stodgy old men regurgitating their lies and fallacies about sexual orientation. Their basic premise is simple: some people don't like to be gay, so there must be a way to not be gay. They care not that the real problem is societal stigma, nor do they care that they are very much enablers of that stigma. The hypothesis that sexual orientation can be changed is, of course, wrong, and even worse, harmful.
That's why I'm proud to support Truth Wins Out's "Lift My Luggage" protest. On Saturday, I will join TWO, Equality Pennsylvania, and a number of organizations as well as fellow bloggers Joe Jervis, Jeremy Hooper, and Pam Spaulding to demonstrate outside the NARTH conference. You may recall that one of NARTH's most prominent leaders, George Rekers, was caught hiring a "rent boy" earlier this year, reminding us that many of NARTH's participants are motivated by their own internalized homophobia.
Personally, my hope is that the quacks who maintain NARTH will die out sooner than later and help the awful mythology of ex-gay therapy end. Until then, they continue to wreak havoc on young people, and we must interrupt them as we are able.
I'm proud too to be participating in SoulForce's symposium that is happening simultaneously. The true goal of the symposium is to create some media resources that can be shared well beyond this weekend's meeting, particularly testimonials and presentations from survivors of the ex-gay movement. While I personally have disagreements with SoulForce's reinforcement of faith and religion, they still do important work to resist the negative impact by anti-gay religious beliefs.
It seems fitting, I suppose, that I will be participating in the Lift My Luggage protest while my good friend and podcast partner Peterson Toscano will be participating in the Soulforce symposium. Of course, he and I will be recording some interviews while we are in Philadelphia this weekend, so make sure to tune in to Queer and Queerer next week to hear from the brilliant and courageous folks speaking out at these events.
For many, ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy might sound like old, worn-out fads that no longer impact people who are bi, lesbian, and gay. The truth is that groups like NARTH continue to spread their hurtful ideas and cause harm to young people all over our nation and world. While their impact may be shrinking, the harm is not, and I'm glad to be working with so many fantastic individuals and groups to be countering them this weekend.
It's been a common mantra coming from the Democratic Party, the Obama Administration, large beltway equality groups like the Human Rights Campaign, and many others for years: just be patient and wait. We'll get to you and your basic civil rights eventually, but we're a little busy. Stop griping and hop on board or you'll be a wedge distraction that makes us lose elections.
So how has that plan worked out?
The LGBT community has been blamed, cajoled, insulted, courted, and ignored depending on whether our votes and dollars are needed, yet when it comes time for real leadership on issues that matter to basic, day-to-day rights, we are told to wait. Now, after the disastrous midterm elections, we've lost the chance of a generation to push forward on civil rights and equality for LGBT people.
We waited and once again got burned.
In the majority of states, we can still be fired, kicked out of homes, or denied services just for being gay. Want to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs? Make it so I don't lose mine for mentioning I went to the grocery store with my husband over the weekend. Want to talk wars, terrorism, and national defense? Stop kicking out qualified LGBT service members to coddle bigots in the military. Want to talk taxes and "small government"? Stop overtaxing my family because the federal government refuses to recognize my marriage and wants to tell me who I can love.
These are real issues that LGBT people face every day. These are things that impact the lives of those that can't afford to buy their way around discrimination with privilege and cold-hard cash that allows them to "vote with their wallet" over basic human rights. To tell us to wait is to tell us to not live our lives fully and with the confidence in basic things needed to survive.
UPDATE: With Lizz after her show, which was full of hilarious riffs on the election. Kate & I had a fab dinner w/her as well.
Lizz was on The State of Things with Frank Stasio earlier on Thursday; check out that interview.
***
Tonight in my neck of the woods -- a relative stone's throw from where I live in Durham, the fabulous Lizz Winstead will be in the house at the Carrboro Arts Center to do her political satire show (tickets are $25), the first since the election. I can't wait hear what she has to say about that debacle; we're breaking bread before the show, so I'll get a sneak preview.
Post Election Day humor from comedian and Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead. Fans asked her to perform at The ArtsCenter--so she is! twitter.com/lizzwinstead. As co-creator and former head writer of The Daily Show and Air America Radio co-founder, LIZZ WINSTEAD is one of the top political satirists in America. As a performer, LIZZ brought her political wit to The Daily Show as a Correspondent and later to the radio waves co-hosting Unfiltered, Air America Radio's mid morning show, where she brought on board Hip Hop legend CHUCK D and political big brain RACHEL MADDOW. Most recently, Lizz wrote and produced an independent pilot of her Off-Broadway hit, "WAKE UP WORLD, a show Rachel Maddow called, "The funniest thing I have seen in years."
Here's an interview with Lizz pre-election when she sat down with Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner.
I'm looking forward to her biting wit -- we need something to laugh about here in NC as the elections were a mixed bag. Speaking of which, Ian Palmquist of EqualityNC shared his thoughts about the election and what it means, since our General Assembly is now going to be run by the Republicans.
Servicemembers United again called for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the National Defense Authorization Act back up for reconsideration before the Senate recesses for the Thanksgiving holiday. (SU press release):
Senator Reid, and Senator Reid alone, ultimately controls how the defense authorization bill will be brought back up, and whether it will get brought up in enough time for it to be completed by the end of the year.
"The path to getting defense authorization and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' wrapped up this year is narrow, but that path is also crystal clear," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United. "There is neither time nor any good reason to delay bringing the authorization bill back up for reconsideration, and the first concrete action on the bill absolutely must occur before the Senate's Thanksgiving recess. A handful of angry and unreasonable Republicans will certainly try to obstruct, but the key to success is going to be striking a deal with a few moderate and reasonable Republicans to proceed on the bill. The McCain contingent should be irrelevant to securing that agreement."
Last week, Servicemembers United released a video message to its members and the public laying out the only realistic path to finishing the defense authorization bill by the end of the year. Given that the bill's sponsor, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, has said that the bill will take up to two weeks on the Senate floor, and given that the bill is widely known to take at least two weeks to conference, the finite Senate calendar during the lame duck session will require work to begin on the bill immediately after the Senate reconvenes in mid-November.
Also, the report of the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group is due to be completed on December 1st. This proximity now means that Senators can vote for the defense authorization bill to proceed to debate secure in the knowledge that their final vote on the actual 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' provision will not be required until well after the Pentagon's report has been completed and released.
As a community we must pause and give careful consideration to our strategy given the new political reality. We should not be shy about examining any aspect of our past leadership or strategy in an attempt to understand what will be the most effective approach in our future. Clearly the paradigm has changed on election day.
What is very clear is that is the national strategy of a delaying votes on our action items for freedom over the last two years turned out to be disastrous mistake. Many of us urgently begged for our President and our national organizations not to delay action or we would face a new Congress. Well, that is exactly what happened although no one could have forecast the landslide that took place.
Legislation: The prospects of passing ENDA and repealing DOMA and DADT are slim to none. No matter what the military report says in December the Republicans in Congress are not about to allow LGBT citizens into the military. Our only hope is that the Department of Justice will drop its appeal (yeah, right) or the President issues a stop loss order. I wouldn't hold our collective breath. Although we 'control' the Senate remember this is more a Senate of the Ben Nelsons and Max Baucuses then of our liberal friends. Nothing can get done without their support. Our opportunities have mostly vanished with our inaction over the last two years and we face a tough new world. If the courts continue to side with us, expect the 'constitutional marriage amendment' to be revived and we could be in trouble.
The Courts: If I was giving money today it would be to those pushing court cases. We seem to be doing better there than anywhere. Who knows if the shift in political climate will make judges more timid or not? The Bois/Olson Proposition 8 case takes on a new urgency. The appeal by President Obama of the Judge Virginia Phillips case could haunt us for years to come as a missed opportunity.
Politically: First and foremost, we most continue to put enormous energy into electing our own. Over 100 openly LGBT candidates were elected around the country on Tuesday. And in the Republican tidal wave, everyone of our Congress people were re-elected with an addition of one new member. There is no substitute for our own holding power.
The LGBT struggle for civil rights is not an appendage of any political party. Freedom has no Party. Our national organizations must remember that they do not work for the President or the Democratic Party. Our LGBT leaders work for and are accountable to us and no one else. We cannot allow outsiders to continue to define the strategy and then blithely follow it. Never again should we be afraid to exercise real power and play tough when we have the opportunity to advance forward. And please, no more condescending lectures about how we don't understand how Washington works.
As we continue with the dialogue about what is next we should be respectful of all of our brothers and sisters. There is a lot to discuss. None of us has all the answers but we are doomed if we don't carefully reflect on election day and what is next.
Last year the seven justices of the Iowa Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a state law that denied same sex marriage. Yesterday, three of those justices were voted out of office. The other four weren’t up for reelection.
Why the Iowa Justices Lost
Their election losses were the culmination of a campaign by out-of-state special interest groups to punish the justices for effectively making gay marriage legal in the state. Grant Shulte of the Des Moines Register reported today:
The ouster effort grew out of the April 2009 gay marriage ruling that stunned the nation, outraged social conservatives and turned Iowa into the first Midwestern state to sanction same-sex marriage. . .
Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
The success of the campaign against the three justices is particularly striking considering the justices opponents: nobody. All the justices had to due was get a simple majority to vote to retain them in office, something no justice had failed to do in Iowa since that state adopted their judicial election system in 1962.
Why the Election Losses Matter
The election losses makes it less likely that elected justices in other states will declare anti-gay-marriage laws unconstitutional in their own jurisdictions.
Unlike the justices for U.S. Supreme Court, justices for 36 state supreme courts, including Iowa, are elected, not appointed. When these justices next decide gay marriage issues, they might now think twice before ruling in favor of gay marriage. The ability for out-of-state groups to fund campaigns against them could mean placing their job at risk if they issue an opinion supporting gay marriage.
In fact, that’s exactly what the opposition group set out to do, according to Vander Plaats, the group’s leader. Three months ago he said:
The ultimate goal is, hopefully, by voting these three justices off of the court on November 2, that we’ll send a message not only across Iowa but hopefully across the country about what was our founders’ intent about the separation of powers.
Plaats did send a message, but not that one. Instead, the message across the country was about what special interest groups will do to justices who vote against gay marriage bans.
[Cross-posted at the Gay Law Report, where I discuss LGBT laws and related news.]
The head of the Catholic Church in Belgium has said that AIDS is "intrinsic justice" for homosexuality.
Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard also said that elderly priests found to have sexually abused children should not be punished.
His spokesman Juergen Mettepenningen resigned over his boss' remarks, AFP reports.
Discussing HIV-positive people, he said: "When you mistreat the environment it ends up mistreating us in turn. And when you mistreat human love, perhaps it winds up taking vengeance.
"All I'm saying is that sometimes there are consequences linked to our actions," the archbishop said, saying of AIDS, "this epidemic is a sort of intrinsic justice."
The attempt at damage control:
At a press conference, Mr Mettepenningen said of his former boss: "Monsignor Leonard at times acts like a motorist driving on the wrong side of a freeway who thinks all the other motorists are wrong."
The Republican leaders will have to respond to this call from Rudy Giuliani to repeal DADT. Via Think Progress:
Rudy Giuliani called on Republicans to "ease up a little bit" on social issues like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer that while he opposed ending the ban at the height of the Iraq war, "you can probably accomplish it now":
GIULIANI: I didn't see [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] as a big issue in this. The social issues were not in this. So maybe that's an area where Republican can ease up a little bit and not ...
BLITZER: But you support gay rights?
GIULIANI: I do.
BLITZER: So you would get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
GIULIANI: My feeling about Don't Ask, Don't Tell was, in the middle of the height of the Iraq war, not a good time to do it. We're not in the middle of the height of the Iraq war. Afghanistan is a different kind of thing. You could probably accomplish it now. It's eventually going to happen and it seems to me that it gets my party out of this anti-gay, feeling that we're being unfair to people who are gay.
Back in 1973, Harvey Milk said something that's become one of my favorite quotes: "Masturbation can be fun, but it does not take the place of the real thing. It is about time that the gay community stopped playing with itself and get down to the real thing."
That's because I've had to boost my insulin levels prior to surgery, and it puts the weight on quickly (thankfully it's leveled off and not still increasing at the present time). Sigh. Hopefully back to the weight loss after the alien uterus is ripped out in a couple of weeks.
UPDATE: With Lizz after her show, which was full of hilarious riffs on the election. Kate & I had a fab dinner w/her as well.
LGBT Community: What Now?
The head of the Catholic Church in Belgium has said that AIDS is "intrinsic justice" for homosexuality.
