(LGBT Issues = Same-Sex Marriage) = The New Transgendercide Agenda

[Cross-posted at The TransAdvocate]

From Queer Channel Media:

Support for same-sex marriage tops the list for what LGBT rights supporters want to hear from President Obama next week during his State of the Union address.

No.

It tops the list of what the ‘all gay marriage, all the time – and fuck the working-class shlubs who don’t already have employment anti-discrimination protection and don’t have an 8-figure estate tax bite taht they’re trying to dodge’-oids want.

The demand from advocates makes for great expectations for the speech, which is set to take place before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

An opponent of same-sex marriage, Obama has suggested his position could “evolve” on the matter and said last month he’s “wrestling” with the idea of marriage rights for gay couples.

Obama hasn’t stated support for same-sex marriage even though several states — including Rhode Island and Maryland — could advance marriage equality legislation this year, while others — including New Hampshire, Indiana and North Carolina — could see restrictions on such rights.

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said stating support for same-sex marriage during the State of the Union address would demonstrate Obama’s leadership.

“We would like for him to publicly state his support for marriage equality,” Carey said. “We have wanted him to lead on this issue. He has talked about … experiencing some evolution, and we’d like to say, ‘Evolve now!’”

Carey said she expects that Obama will discuss the economic hardships facing the country, which she said would present an opportunity for the president to acknowledge that a lack of marriage rights exacerbates these problems for same-sex couples.

“One of these stresses for same-sex couples on their families is because we can’t get married in so many places and because of DOMA, there are so many ways that we do not have protections for our families that are only adding stress in this economic climate,” she said.

Of course, that paragraph should have ended: “…she said, comfortable in the knowledge that she knows where her next paycheck is coming from.”

Richard Socarides, president of the media watchdog group Equality Matters, also said Obama should talk about his “journey of evolution” and come out in support of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Watchdog group?

Every day I watch one of my dogs eat the other dog’s poop.

“I think that it’s important for him to get to the other side of the journey as quickly as possible because he is the leader of our country and he needs to be leading us and the nation in a direction of acceptance of full equality for LGBT people,” Socarides said.

Ah…

You should thank him.  After all, he’s done all of the the math for you: marriage rights for same-sex couples = full equality for LGBT people.

Still, Socarides said he thinks Obama will focus on the economy as well as the political tone in Washington and expressed skepticism that Obama would broach the topic of same-sex marriage during his speech.

“I think it would be a perfect opportunity for him to announce that his evolution is complete,” Socarides said. “But just because I think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean I think we’ll see it. I think he’s not there yet.”

Whether the president will even address LGBT issues during his speech remains in question. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said as of Blade deadline he had no updates on what would be included in the State of the Union address.

During a news conference Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he didn’t know whether the president would address marriage or repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act during his speech.

Mentioning LGBT issues such as same-sex marriage during the State of the Union could be a catalyst for progress in the coming year.

Ah…

You need to send thanks to Queer Channel Media as well.  They’re doing math for you so you don’t have think about how the numbers don’t add up:  LGBT issues = same-sex marriage

Last year, President Obama’s mention of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was seen as the starting point for the path that led to the passage of legislation allowing for repeal of the law.

Maybe in St. Crain Land.  The rest of us saw it as the beginning of the open subversion of ENDA.

Socarides said the State of the Union address presents “the perfect place” for Obama to set up the path for advancement on LGBT issues like marriage rights for same-sex couples.

I mean it! You really, really, really, really should thank him.  After all, he’s making sure that you never need to worry about whether anything adds up: LGBT issues = marriage rights for same-sex couples

In addition to support for same-sex marriage, LGBT rights supporters said they would like to hear about a trans-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the address.

GASP!!!!!!!!!!

And only 20 paragraphs into a 26-paragraph piece!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Autumn Sandeen, a San Diego-based transgender activist, said Obama needs to address employment discrimination experienced by transgender people as well as gays on the national level.

Are the steel-cage death matches over now, Autumn?  I hope so – because I hope you’ll get right on ENDA given that someone who’s paid $80+ K to advocate for us…

won’t.

I’ll even see about getting you a diamond-encrusted turnbuckle.

On a plane from Phoenix to DCA, sitting next to John McCain. When you fly in and out of DC a lot as I do, you frequently are on planes with members of Congress.

Believe it or not I had nothing to say to him. And every veteran on the plane–and there were a lot-were lining up to meet him. Me talking about ENDA would have been meaningless and annoying. When I do I need to talk to him about that in a couple of years, he’ll likely have some vague memory that we’ve met and hopefully that will help.

There is no real etiquette other than my own which is I do not bother famous people when they are traveling. I don’t ask for autographs and I don’t ask to have my picture taken. Just me. If I had needed to talk to him about busine…ss, I would, but there is nothing he can do for trans people currently so why hassle a fellow harried traveler?

Why indeed?  You’re both overpaid political parasites who have about as much comprehension of the practical needs of anyone in the real world as that one dog of mine has about how to go through a day without eating the other dog’s poop.

For some reason here I’m reminded of a parable about snakes, lawyers and professional courtesy.

But I digress…

And I think I’ll close by quoting Joelle Ruby Ryan’s take on the Queer Channel Media missive:

This article makes my skin crawl. Could Gay Inc. declare its “all marriage all the time” agenda any more clearly if they tried?

Well…

They could have included the Quisling’s quacking about how unnecessary it is to make any attempt to speak to speak to a powerful senator when you have the opportunity to do so.

Hey…

All you people who have paid money to come t oDC to lobby for ENDA…

Don’t you just feel more special now than you’ve ever felt before?

Don’t you just feel soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo motivated to spend some more money that you don’t have to spend to fly to DC in order to attempt to have standard-issue conversations about yet another imaginary ENDA with the junior staffers of senior politicians who someone who is paid $80+K to lobby has opportunities to lobby face-to-face but, when presented with such an opportunity, chooses instead to sleep and mind her own business?

49 Responses to (LGBT Issues = Same-Sex Marriage) = The New Transgendercide Agenda

  1. Zoe Brain says:

    I live in Canberra, the capital of Australia. I don’t get to fly much, the bus is cheaper, and unless it’s a 1-class puddle-jumper, I wouldn’t be mixing with the politicians anyway.

    But sometimes I do fly, and sometimes it’s a 1-class, and sometimes I sit next to a Senator or MLA. And I never, ever, pass up such an opportunity. Neither does the poli – because they get to feel the pulse of the community, free from flaks and those who restrict their access.

  2. Nicki says:

    Though I agree totally about inclusive ENDA and the urgent need have this vital legislation in place ASAP. I am also aware that for a lot of couples where one partner transitions, that on top of all the pressures driving them apart there is the looming spectre that as a result of the transition, their marriage MUST end if the transitioning partner is to be recognised as their true gender.

    So yes, while it is no way as urgent and vital as a trans inclusive ENDA, the repeal of DOMA and marriage equality would also be something I would welcome as relevant to those transsexuals who transition inside of a marriage.

    • Kathleen says:

      “I am also aware that for a lot of couples where one partner transitions, that on top of all the pressures driving them apart there is the looming spectre that as a result of the transition, their marriage MUST end if the transitioning partner is to be recognised as their true gender.”

      I think you have misinformation here – a valid marriage (at least in the US) entered into prior to transition remains in effect afterwards regardless of the transition. No one but a member of the couple has standing to challenge it either.

      Marriages afterwards are problematic.

      • Natasha says:

        My esposa and I talked about this because it was a worry. But I cannot see the government coming into my home and forcing us to get a divorce.

        I feel for those who cannot get married right now. I feel worse for those who cannot get a job because of their gender or sexual orientation or keep a job if they transition (this is a problem for me, thank you).

        Why is a trans inclusive ENDA not a priority? I believe it is not a transformative issue like same-sex marriage is. Most people (a generalization in comparison) pay little or no attention to ENDA (which is why it would not have been as difficult to pass in the last congress…lost opportunities) but are very aware and polarized by gay marriage. It’s a shame that those who advocate for our interests cannot see past one issue at a time. Multi-tasking is a good thing.

  3. Wow. Does all this bile help advance the cause in any way? Hyperbole about “transgendercide” and framing the discussion as marriage vs. ENDA is no more productive than “working-class shlubs” vs. “8-figure estate tax bite taht they’re trying to dodge’-oids.” Can’t people support both issues? Don’t we need to build a coalition rather than tear each other apart? BTW, civil marriage equality benefits working-class shlubs who can’t afford to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys to set up all the legal instruments needed to give them and their partners any protection. In any case, a lot of work lies ahead to pass an inclusive ENDA, and the scorched-earth venting above might make someone feel better but it sure doesn’t help that cause.

    • Kathleen says:

      You’re misinterpreting peoples concerns.

      Most people here have argued just for that – working on both issues of employment/public accommodation & marriage in states and nationally.

      This is not what is happening. Marriage is being pushed Delaware, NH, Hawaii, and several other states where trans people have none of these rights while you do. And I can tell you that I have most definitely been told that those employment rights will not be worked on in Delaware by the same folks who pushed us out of enda in 2007 – and that the discussions being made by local leaders in these areas is that we can’t work on both.

      It’s no surprise as to which issue is people who already have employment protections feel can wait.

      Can we work on all these issues? That’s what people are arguing here. We’re not – otherwise we’d be ponying up the millions in national resources people were advocating for in NH to fight back the push to overturn marriage to pass a trans inclusive bill – or – at the very least – several local bills in Cities like Portsmouth, Exeter, Concord – which really would only need $100,000 or so to target several. While – you know -working on mrraige.

      It’s not happening anywhere – I think you’re well aware of this Richard.

      • Yes, Kathleen, I am aware of a lot of things, including BTW the fact that in my home town of D.C., we won transgender equality before marriage equality. I realize that is not representative of experiences elsewhere.

        My point is that the nastiness in the main blog post above is not helpful, nor are the false and tendentious characterizations. Most of us who have worked on marriage equality are not wealthy. And many marriage equality advocates also support transgender equality. Of course I realize (recalling the United ENDA debate in 2007) that a lot of people regard any disagreement in strategy as betrayal. But sniping doesn’t help. Now with the GOP running the House, neither ENDA passage nor DOMA repeal is going anywhere for two years. In the same boat is the Uniting American Families Act, which affects me directly as a member of a binational couple. We need to build alliances, not enemies lists. I can’t imagine how attacking Autumn and Mara helps at all. Venting is no strategy.

      • Kathleen says:

        Rick:

        Thank you for agreeing with me that we are in fact – not working on both of these issues.

        As this was the substantive strategic argument you made – that we can and should do so – I look forward to your bringing the issue up on other blogs where marriage in Delaware, NH & Hawaii are being discussed. If you could post some links here – I’d be glad to read them and support you in those efforts to insure all of these issues are given resources and support.

      • I don’t recall stating that “we are … not working on both of these issues.” Various people are working on all sorts of different things. I am a local activist in D.C., where I have worked with the DC Trans Coalition and others in fighting (among other things) discrimination by the Dept. of Corrections (which their own counsel said was in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act). My efforts got us in the door with the DC Attorney General to discuss the subject. The results were decidedly mixed, but that’s the nature of activism–we get what we can and keep fighting. We work in coalition in D.C., without having to play passive-aggressive games with each other. We don’t need to tell each other what to do, or use the power of negative thinking as motivation.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Does all this bile help advance the cause in any way?

      Why don’t you ask Barney ‘I’ve done more to promote the myth of sexually predatory trans women in women’s restrooms than the radical right could imagine doing in its wildest wet dreams’ Frank?

      We’re expected to be obedient lemmings for whatever gays want in whatever order gays want it and no matter how much we’re lied to the intentions of gays to ever address our needs – but when we even appear to actually expect actual, more-legitimate-than-a-2007-Solmonese-speech support, we can count on the high-end (InsidersOut, perhaps)) gay blog-oids to suddenly decide that its time for a socio-political, deconstructive one-letter-ectomy on the term ‘LGBT.’

      Does all this bile help advance the cause in any way?

      It advances ‘the cause’ in the same way that New Hampshire’s still-gay-only law is ‘incremental progress’ for trans people.

      • Ah, still obsessing about Barney Frank. But before anyone asks any more questions of Barney on the subject, they should bother reading his ten thousand words on the subject entered into the Congressional Record on about October 9, 2007, and bother responding to it with specifics. Or you could simply move on and do something constructive. As Barney once said (and I am paraphrasing), some of us want to change things, but some people just want to complain. Look, if you’re going to respond with more hair-on-fire crap, don’t bother.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Still trying to be an apologist for a political hack who abused his constitutional immunity (speaking of abuse – does your employer know how much time you’ve spent replying to comments on this blog today?) by writing his own fake history on the floor of the U.S. House that day while ignoring history as it actually happened?

        The politics of political destruction-via-soundbite benefits only the oppressor class. We who are actually trying to get out from under your feet on our necks have to spend hndreds of pages and thousands of words to deconstruct the fuzzy little falsehoods you use to illegitimately appropriate power and to con viewers and readers into accepting your version of events.

        “Where the Rubber Left the Road: The Use and Misuse of History in the Quest for the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 18:397 (2009).

        I’m sure you’re in range of someone with a computer that has access to Lexis or Westlaw.

      • Wow, that’s a fascinating demonstration of pathology. I doubt that you bothered to read what Barney had to say, and doubtless you can count on many other readers sharing your profound hostility toward him. One detail: the Bumble case did NOT say what Lambda Legal said it did. Barney’s staff handed out copies at his news conference on October 11, 2007. Incidentally, Barney has done things since then. History did not stop. I am wondering, do you regard his transgender staffer as a traitor?

        Whether you know it or acknowledge it or not, I am a proven ally. But of course that is not true if any disagreement ever constitutes betrayal. How tiresome. My boot on your neck? Oppressor class? Gee, how could anyone resist such appeals? The potential allies will be lined up around the block.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Wow, that’s a fascinating demonstration of pathology.

        Some friendly advice: Just type “la, la, la” and mumble to yourself “I can’t hear you.” It’ll save you some keystroke energy – and will be intellectually equal to the ahistorical rut you’re gringing yourself into right now.

      • Katrina, anyone who can read all your bilious stuff on here and conclude that you are reasonable is choosing to inhabit the same wing of Bedlam. Believe what you like. This is clearly unproductive. To quote a hardworking transgender activist of whom I think highly, after another person noisily and dramatically disrupted a meeting: “Just ignore her, she does that at every meeting.” Trying asking yourself, is venting your anger really more important to you than working productively for change? I am not your enemy, no matter what you say. You are harming your own cause. The saddest thing is that so few are apparently willing to call you on it.

      • libhomo says:

        I used to live in DC, and I can tell you. Never take anything Rosendall says seriously. It just isn’t worth the bother.

      • Gee, that’s impressive, Libhomo–an anonymous, substanceless ad hominem. What was I thinking when I read Barney’s 10,000-word presentation on ENDA back in Oct. 2007, when I could just have made a nasty, dismissive crack? If you cannot channel your anger better than this, you are fighting against yourself.

      • libhomo says:

        This is a test. Will RR insist on getting the last word in?

  4. Kathleen says:

    This is what were doing in PA – where people will fight a marriage amendment.

    Equality PA gets new lobbying power, funding

    http://epgn.com/view/full_story/11071428/article-Equality-PA-gets-new-lobbying-power–funding?instance=home_news

    The group was the beneficiary of a $100,000 grant ……………

    The funding will be spread equally over two years and is dedicated to Equality PA’s work on garnering the passage of municipal LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances.

    Working on both issues at the same time. We had an inclusive hate crimes bill passed in 2002 – it was overturned on procedural grounds related to the manner of it’s passage.

    And while a statewide employment bill isn’t going to happen over the next few years – we’ve passed 19 local bills – with more in the wings.

    So – yes – we can work on both issues at the same time.

    We’re not doing that at all elsewhere. DE – not a single local bill employment covering trans people – statewide protections – the very same in Hawaii & NH – but – a full court press on marriage.

    Who’s BS’ing who?

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I’m sure that, as evidence of a desire to further a constructive dialogue and to positively further the possibility of actually encouraging “people [to] support both issues,” Mr. Rosendall will be happy to state for the record whether he has any knowledge of any organized gay media messaging effort to push gay marriage to the front of the agenda – irrespective of whether such push is originating from InsidersOut or not.

      • I am not a member of InsidersOut, so you should ask them. I don’t have any secret insider knowledge. But sure, a lot of people have prioritized marriage. And belittling and attacking their efforts and priorities hasn’t the slightest chance of advancing a trans-inclusive ENDA. But suit yourself.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        So we trans scum should sit back and enjoy being politically raped yet again by the same people who established gay-over-trans civil rights apartheid in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Delaware?

        Gays may have the money to bully lawmakers into giving them their rights – and then more rights after that and then more rights after that – while continually screwing over the people who actually need civil rights protections, but they have no legitimate expectation of not having their crimes analyzed and illuminated.

      • No, Katrina, that is not what I said or what I thought. You discredit your own position if you insist on mischaracterizing others. Are you seeking the narrowest possible coalition? That’s what your insults and dramatics are likely to achieve. As I already said, in my city we got transgender rights before we got marriage rights. There was no raping involved.

  5. Kathleen says:

    Rick Rosendall says:

    “Can’t people support both issues?”
    ”I don’t recall stating that “we are … not working on both of these issues.”

    OK then – you’re working on both issues by working on one while derailing work on another. That’s some fine police work there, Lou.

    Rick Rosendall says:

    “Venting is no strategy.”

    And yet – here you are; trying to derail arguments you find ineffectual which question your priorities. What sort of strategy does this evidence? Unless the arguments have some value?

    Rick Rosendall says:

    “We work in coalition in D.C., without having to play passive-aggressive games with each other.”

    While I’ll admit you display more versatility in your tactics; don’t fool yourself into thinking we’ll just sit back and enjoy it.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      …here you are; trying to derail arguments you find ineffectual which question your priorities.

      I wonder if he knows “Lurleen“?

    • There you go with the rape imagery. Disagreement on a blog is just that; it’s not assault. As to the derailment metaphor, one cannot derail something that isn’t on the track in the first place. Somewhere in all this is a deep reluctance to accept the inherent truth that we are a diverse community and that everyone is not going to agree on or work on the same thing.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Funny how the people who benefit from the staus quo feel they have the right to control not only the agenda about when/if the status quo should change but also the vocabulary through which those who are suffering from the status quo describe their pain, eh?

      • Kathleen says:

        I thought the derailment language was fairly explicit. I’ll have to watch that in the future.

        Working on different things does not equal stiffing one of those things – which is exactly what’s happening.

        And why you’re posting so often here.

  6. Sure, Katrina, because disagreement is a form of oppression, right? Funny how “control” gets raised.

    If I’m so wedded to the status quo, I wonder why I spend so much time trying to change things. But hey, make stuff up.

  7. libhomo says:

    The irony in the action of elitist LGBT organizations in pushing marriage to the exclusion of much else is that most cis queers in places with same sex marriage don’t get married. More interestingly, most queer couples in such places don’t get married either.

    • What makes a group “elitist” other than disagreeing with you? Check out point #7 here:
      http://www.glaa.org/archive/2010/talkingpoints0530.shtml

      • Kathleen says:

        An elitist just might be one that pushes for marriage rights for some who already have existing employment rights before pushing for everyone in that jurisdiction having the rights he already enjoys.

        It’s kinda the definition of the word. And you know how to disprove the assertion. Still waiting for those links- and the opportunity to work with you on those other rights in places pushing for marriage.

        If not – why are you here again?

      • Now I have to justify visiting a particular website? My, how bossy you are. I already alluded to your passive-aggression.

        An absurdly, comically false genereralziation was previously made on here that marriage equality supporters are all worried about avoiding 8-figure estate taxes, while ENDA supporters are working-class shlubs–when in fact most of us support both. That false dichotomy is ugly and silly and pointless.

        Another unfortunate choice being made here is treating criticism of the over-the-top use of terms like “transgendercide” as constituting agreement with other people’s legislative priorities and strategies. In fact, my point is just that no good purpose is served by Katrina’s generally directed vituperation. Whether fair or not, constant denunciation and cries of betrayal are not a way to build a winning coalition. You must realize this, but instead of even pausing to consider that I have a point, you go snide and act as if I owe you something. If you want to know what I do, google me, since I actually use my own name when I post comments on the Internet. But from your bossy tone and apparent expectation that insulting people is the way to make them do what you want, it is you who seem to be the elite one.

        But hey, if grievance-collecting is your true calling, wear yourself out.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Now I have to justify visiting a particular website?

        Not to me – but I’m sure your therapist would like to inquire into your mothlike attraction to the ENDABlog flame.

        Look doll (I forget – is that one ‘l’ or two?), neither those who dishonestly create a fake political image (e.g., trans people just showed up to the fight ten minutes ago) that is then set loose to replicate in the minds of legislators like tribbles, knowing that that replication will result in the legislative rape of trans people nor their apologists have any standing to stand on a Rhode Island Avenue soapbox and – in a tone remarkably on par with christianists’ cliams of ‘christian persecution’ – complain that ‘constant denunciation and cries of betrayal are not a way to build a winning coalition’ when, historically, our efforts that would, presumably, meet your standard of decorum control, are only rewarded with lies, deceit, betrayal, sockpuppetry and, for all we can tell, the heartbreak of psoriasis.

      • Katrina, obviously I’m a glutton for punishment–that is, I have a fairly high threshold for verbal abuse–but it would seem a poor tactic for you to refer to other people’s need for a therapist.

        “Legislative rape” is another over-the-top expression, like “transgendercide.” Rape and genocide as metaphors are incendiary and not designed to persuade. If you feel you have exhausted more civil approaches, while the reference to the Human Rights Campaign (the Rhode Island Avenue reference, for those who don’t keep track of these things)? I happen to live a few blocks north of there, but I do not work for them. There are lots of other organizations to choose from, or one can start one’s own. It seems to me that an awful lot of energy has been wasted over the years on attacks against HRC. How well did those attacks work?

        My suggestion that you try a less hysterical and vicious rhetorical tone does not become an attempt to control you just because political paranoia is a growth industry.

        Incidentally, back in late 2007, during the discussion on ENDA, in one of my columns I explicitly rebuked John Aravosis for his historically ignorant and obnoxious comments to the effect of “who let the trannies in the room?” and cited a few incidents from the mid-1960s that illustrated the fact that transgender people have been part of “the movement” since long before the term “transgender” existed. I don’t know many people as obnoxious as Aravosis. The you-just-showed-up meme is pretty ridiculous.

  8. BTW, those of us in binational relationships do not truly have marriage equality even if we live in jurisdictions with marriage equality, because we and our chosen spouses are treated as strangers under federal DOMA law. So the D.C. marriage law, while a great victory, does not help me personally. Meanwhile, the law where I live and do my activism, D.C., already grants fully equality to transgender people. Unfortunately, lawmaking is not enough when trying to overcome longstanding prejudice, so our coalition efforts continue. What makes no sense in any case is to pit marriage rights against transgender rights. If marriage advocacy is riper in a particular jurisdiction, that’s a reason for further organizing on transgender issues, not knocking marriage advocacy. I understand the anger, and if channeled productively it can be valuable; but just spewing it in all directions is merely self-indulgent. BTW, you have no monopoly on anger. We can all get angry; so what? Like most activists, I am a volunteer with an unrelated full-time job and someone who depends on me, and no trust fund to fall back on. The LGBT movement overall is under-resourced, and the front line of activists overworked and overstretched. A more constructive approach to internal disputes seems smarter and more decent than facile charges of genocide. Hey, I can deal with misdirected anger more than most people will. Most people will run for the exits. What is left is little more than a group therapy session. If that’s your aim, so be it.

  9. Kathleen says:

    “Now I have to justify visiting a particular website? My, how bossy you are.”

    If you’re going to question the reasons and effectiveness of others posts here – you should at least be able to articulate yours.

    The rest is just more derailment – derailment I’m paying for as you’re posting here during your federal employee work hours.

    Get back to work.

  10. Kathleen says:

    “You’re really doubling down, aren’t you? Amazing, if sad.”

    Another sentence without content that doesn’t address the subjects under discussion.

    Hey – I’ll triple down if it makes you feel all warmy inside.

    Ask the blog owner to release the IP addresses you posted from.

    Then go take a long look in the mirror.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      That sounds like a double-dog dare to me, Ralphie!

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Actually, I wonder if Darrell ‘watchdog’ Issa knows how much gay politicking is taking place on taxpayer-funded computers?

      Ask the blog owner to release the IP addresses you posted from.

      Yes – and the key there is the plural.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Now if I can just find a Simpsons clip with a tumbleweed rolling through their living room….

      • Kathleen says:

        The problem with junior was that he was trying to derail my rights. When you set up conditions so it’s a zero sum game & then derail other peoples rights that you already have – you invite others to act in opposition to your goal.

        Lord knows I don’t want to accept that invitation. I support those rights as well. But – what options do you leave me in going forward when you make it so “there can only be one”?

  11. [...] to Hilary Rosen’s, well…, Hilary Rosen or unless Mara Keisling is there telling people how to make $80,000 a year by refusing to make any effort to lobby senators when you have the chance – the gay men prancing around in Priscilla will be the trans-inclusion for the evening [...]

  12. [...] certainly seemed to beleive her own(anti-)logic behind not taking the opportunity to talk to John McCain when the opportunityt presented itself. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Usual [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: