Trans LA Times sportswriter dies

LA Times:

Penner garnered much support and some criticism when he announced he was a "transsexual sportswriter."

"During my 23 years with The Times' sports department, I have held a wide variety of roles and titles. Tennis writer. Angels beat reporter. Olympics writer. Essayist. Sports media critic. NFL columnist. Recent keeper of the Morning Briefing flame. Today I leave for a few weeks' vacation, and when I return, I will come back in yet another incarnation. As Christine," he wrote. "I am a transsexual sportswriter. It has taken more than 40 years, a million tears and hundreds of hours of soul-wrenching therapy for me to work up the courage to type those words. I realize many readers and colleagues and friends will be shocked to read them."

Background on the story here. Read the rest of this post...

Civil unions instead of marriage?

From AP:

"When I speak to women from Florida or Wisconsin or Minnesota, they are like, 'I don't care what it's called, I just want to be able to visit my wife in the hospital and cover my children with my health insurance,'" said Traiman, who helped pass the nation's first domestic partnership law a quarter-century ago in Berkeley.

In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.

"They think the best way to achieve their goal of marriage with all the rights and benefits of marriage is a complete frontal assault, and any other strategy is a betrayal of their goal," Traiman said.

It's an interesting, and age-old, proposal (so to speak): Put marriage off for another day, and go for civil unions today. It's what they did in Washington state this last election, well, in their case it was domestic partnerships with the full benefits of marriage. While I'm not a big fan of "separate but equal" - especially when you can get much more - settling for second best is an interesting interim proposition when it comes to marriage. A few years of civil unions or domestic partnerships on the books, and no locusts in sight, and it will become harder and harder for the Mormon and religious right anti-gay bigots, and the pedophile-enablers in the Catholic Church, to argue that gay unions somehow "hurt" straight couples.

The danger with this approach is when you choose separate but equal over full equality simply because you're afraid to try for more. That's the growing impression of the Obama administration's approach to gay civil rights (and practically every other issue): Why try for more when you can settle for less? That's not a strategic move. It's weakness, and a missed opportunity. Read the rest of this post...

African-Americans should be better on gay civil rights issues, and we should be better on theirs

An interesting, and typical, opinion piece in today's Washington Post about the black community and its often backwards views on the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The writer is upset that Julian Bond, among other black leaders, suggested that the black community, of all people, should not oppose equality for gays. Too bad. Bond is right. Blacks should be better on civil rights issues as a result of their unique history and suffering. And the same goes for the gay community - we are the last people who should be racist against blacks, or bigoted towards Jews, Latinos, or any other minority. We know first-hand what's it like to be treated, and thought of, as second-class citizens.

The writer, rather cutely, suggests that when African-Americans don't treat other minorities as they themselves would like to be treated, it's actually a victory for black freedom. We've heard that one before. The bigots in Maine and Utah are actually following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, they claim. Uh huh. And by defending DOMA in court, President Obama's apologists tell us, the President is actually showing how different he is from George Bush, because Obama is now "defending" the rule of (separate but equal) law. Yeah, he's the second coming of Harvey Milk all right.

Then there's this little nugget, which really says all it needs to say about the author, and more generally, his point of view:

To be clear, Bond has used this line several times, and when he says "equality," he isn't talking about the right to vote, the right to eat at a public restaurant, the right to attend an integrated school or the right to a fair trial. He is talking about the right to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Let me paraphrase, circa 1966.

To be clear, Bond has used this line several times, and when he says "equality," he isn't talking about the right to vote, the right to eat at a public restaurant, the right to attend an integrated school or the right to a fair trial. He is talking about the right to change the definition of marriage to include mixed-race couples.

Just marriage? That's interesting. I didn't realize that Loving v. Virginia was a minor victory in the struggle for civil rights because it was "only" about marriage. (Tell that one to the President's parents.)

But Julian Bond isn't just talking about marriage. He's talking about not being fired from your job for being gay (employment discrimination), about not being kicked out of your apartment (public accommodations), or beaten to a pulp (hate crimes). How is what gays and lesbians are asking for any different than what any other minority has asked for in America? The rights are exactly the same.

We've heard it all before, from gay Republicans, Jewish conservatives, radical right women, and far-right Latinos. How dare you stereotype our community by suggesting we embrace freedom for everyone and injustice for no one? It's a convenient complaint to deflect some pretty glaring hypocrisy. The embrace of bigotry doesn't show how open minded you are. It shows how much you've forgotten what it's like to be held down by the prejudice of others.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Washington Post opinion writer, Coretta Scott King thinks you're wrong too. Read the rest of this post...

British and Canadian govts protest crazy anti-gay Ugandan law

The Guardian:

Britain and Canada today led Commonwealth protests against a law proposed by the Ugandan parliament which would introduce the death penalty by hanging for "aggravated homosexuality".

Gordon Brown expressed Britain's concerns about the parliamentary bill when he met Yoweri Museveni, the veteran Ugandan president, at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago.

The suggested legislation would apply to sex between gay men or lesbian women in which one person has HIV.

The bill also proposes the introduction of a three-year prison sentence for anyone who knows of the existence of a gay man or lesbian woman and fails to inform authorities in Uganda within 24 hours.

Read the rest of this post...

DC set to legalize same-sex marriage next week

The article says that no one is expecting Congress to intervene. Boy, I sure hope they're right, because I'd be surprised if the Republicans don't pull some stunt, and I'd be equally surprised if the Democrats didn't cave. Hopefully I'm wrong. Read the rest of this post...