The Master (Revisionist) Narrative Continueth

November 29, 2007

From Queer Channel Media:

 Only one state permits gay marriage. Four others have enacted civil unions, including New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. California, Oregon, Maine, Washington and Washington, D.C., have enacted domestic partnership laws that extend some rights of marriage, such as hospital visitation to gay couples. And Hawaii offers limited rights to gay couples. Twenty-six states now have constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples; another 19 states have codified straight-only marriage in state law. In addition, same-sex couples are barred from adopting children in Florida, Mississippi and Utah; an adoption ban effort is currently underway in Arkansas.

Yes, the gay rights movement has progressed quickly, but so much work lies ahead.

If you’re lucky enough to be welcome at your family home this holiday season, clip this out and take it with you. Help make sure gay allies understand the discrimination we face.

Indeed, there is a lot to be angry about.

Yes – including the fact that Queer Channel Media couldn’t be bothered to mention how many states statutorily recognize the reality of transsexualism.

A gay-primacy master narrative for the movement just wouldn’t function as well if the highest positive number was pro-trans, now would it?

60 – 37 (And, No, I’m Not Reporting a College Basketball Score)

November 29, 2007

Hat tip to Kathy for pointing this out to me.

Other than that, I’m speechless…

for now.

Hunter Poll Finds Clinton Has Support of 63% of LGB Likely Voters


In the first public, political survey ever conducted by a university-based team of scholars with a nationally representative sample of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGBs) Americans, results released today show that Senator Hillary Clinton has the support of 63 percent of LGB likely voters in the Democratic primaries, followed by Senator Barack Obama with 22 percent and John Edwards with 7 percent.  The Hunter College Poll also finds that during the process of “coming out,” LGBs become more liberal and more engaged in the political process than the general population. 


“We found a stunning transformation in political views in the LGB community of a magnitude that is virtually unparalleled among social groupings in the U.S. population,” said political science professor Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College, one of the study’s investigators.  The Hunter College Poll was conducted with 768 respondents by Knowledge Networks, Inc. from November 15th through November 26th, 2007.

Other findings include:

Nine in 10 LGB likely voters will vote in the Democratic primaries and 21 percent say that lesbian and gay rights will be the most important issue influencing their vote in 2008.

72 percent of LGB likely voters consider Senator Clinton a supporter of gay rights, with Senator Obama at 52 percent and former Senator Edwards at 41 percent.  On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was at 37 percent, followed by Senator John McCain at 13 percent.

“These findings suggest opportunities.  Clinton benefits from a high turnout in this very Democratic bloc; her opponents would benefit from making their stated support for gay rights more visible to LGB voters,” said Murray Edelman, a distinguished scholar at Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute and one of the study’s investigators.

33 percent of all respondents say they are “very interested” in politics compared to 22 percent of the Knowledge Networks general population sample.  And 36 percent said they became more interested in politics during their “coming out” period.

LGBs were more likely than the general population to have contacted a government official in the past 12 months (23 percent to 16 percent).


“These levels of civic engagement indicate that gay people can have a bigger influence on public policy than suggested by their relatively small share of the population,” said Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor at New York University and another of the study’s investigators.

Asked what gay rights goals are “extremely important,” LGBs chose:



% saying goal is “extremely important”


enacting employment non-discrimination laws



protections from bias crimes



securing spousal benefits



AIDS funding



legalizing same-sex marriage



rights of transgendered people



ending the military’s ban on being openly gay



When asked about the proposed federal law making it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment, LGBs (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said that those seeking to pass the law were wrong to remove protections for transgendered people in order to get the votes necessary for passage in Congress.


The Hunter College Poll was funded by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.  Sole control over the design of the study’s questionnaire and analysis of the data were maintained by the study’s investigators.  The survey was conducted among those who identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual to Knowledge Networks, which recruits its nationally representative sample of respondents by telephone and administers surveys to them via the Internet.  The survey has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.

Am I missing something?


November 29, 2007

I lived in Iowa during the last prez caucus cycle; I no longer do, though I still work there.  Translation: In ’04 I got to participate, but in ’08, I just get to watch (though if I manage to get this close to Joan Jett again, it might all be okay…but, I digress.)


I was among the group of trans activists who met with some high-ranking Kerry people during DC Lobby days in ’04; by that point, Kerry had sealed-up the nomination.

At the meeting, I introduced myself by saying that I’d caucused for Howard Dean at the precinct level but, for unity, moved to the Kerry column at the county level.

I was so ‘impressed’ by the reception we got from the Kerry folks that, when I went to the state convention in June, I moved back to the Dean column.

This brings me to the latest Debate Gate.  Wonkette asks (and all but answers) the question: ‘Did Clinton Plant Old Gay Soldier at Debate?’

I’m particularly intrigued by this passage about HRC’s favorite HRC:

 “Following the debate, CNN learned that retired Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee,” CNN said in a statement released today. David Bohman, senior vice president and executive producer of the debate, added: “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the general’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

The plant?

Naaaaaaaahh.  Who cares?  Does anyone think that any president (particularly HRC’s favorite HRC) from here on forward will not follow this tried-n-true (tried-n-false?) Rove-Gannon methodology both on the campaign trial and once in office?  Let’s face it: The public is stupid and the press doesn’t care.  Game over on that point.

I’m most intrigued by one passage from that paragraph, however:

Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee

How much sTeering has been goin’ on?

Worthwhile Analysis: Vanessa Edwards Foster on Whithering Heights, er…, NCTE

November 28, 2007

Catch it at TransAdvocate:

[Mara Keisling] can’t be both insider with the elite few and outsider with all the rest of us. The choice must be made.

That said, her performance as an HRC critic makes zero sense. It’s like watching a cigarette boat zooming ahead in a race when suddenly the rudder snaps, and the boat does a quick 180 headlong into the oncoming race boats. The outsiders weren’t buying the “sudden critic” routine.

There’s more, of course – and its a long post, but Vanessa knows of what she speaks.

‘Duh!’ Alert: The HRC ‘Poll’ Was Unscientific Bullshit

November 28, 2007

First off, a hat tip where a hat tip is due: To Queer Channel Media for apparently doing a bit more investigatory journalism on the HRC ‘poll.’

Anyone with functioning brain cells in the portion of the brain that governs ethics has already self-acknowledged that the HRC ‘poll’ was a pile of shit excreted by the Scampaign and spread around by the Shamvocate.  Now, however…

Polling experts are questioning a recent Human Rights Campaign survey that asked gays about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The survey’s results, circulated last month by HRC when many gays were locked in heated debate over the measure’s lack of transgender protections, show most people who responded support the bill as written.

But John Stahura, who specializes in survey research and directs the Purdue University Social Research Institute, said the survey’s methodology is problematic.

“They’re playing games,” he said after reviewing survey excerpts at the Blade’s request. “It doesn’t make sense.”

The temptation is to say, “Duh!” – and to say it loudly.

Of course, it really did make sense to anyone who was willing to acknowledge not only how morally bankrupt the well-monied gay rights industrial monolith actually is but the extent to which it will take that moral bankruptcy out of the field of theory and put it into action: It was pure fraud designed to coerce into an Oath o’ Barney-Fealty just enough of a GLBT populace that actually did – and does – want trans-inclusion but also doesn’t want the movement to implode if inclusion isn’t possible.

Conning the people into accepting a fake reality….

That’s never happened, has it?

[HRC communications director Brad] Luna said HRC is confident in the work that Knowledge Networks performs.

“While all surveys have limitations, Knowledge Networks surveys are very high in quality,” he said. “They have a stellar reputation, and I have full confidence in their work.”

Uh huh.

I bet he has “full confidence” in HRC’s claims that it has helped ‘educate’ on trans issues.

But, don’t look now…

Someone else doesn’t have full confidence in that ‘poll’:

“I don’t know based upon this response that you could say how the community — the gay, lesbian, bisexual community — feels about the legislation,” Stahura said. “I don’t think those questions give you that answer.”

Christopher Barron, a Washington political consultant Log Cabin’s former political director, who is gay and does survey interpretation, agreed. He said the methodology, which he described as “bizarre,” might not allow the results to be projected nationally.

“It may be that it’s completely and totally sound,” he said. “But there’s nothing there that tells us that it is, so you can’t assume it’s a nationally representative sample.”

Luna told the Blade this week that the survey is nationally representative.

Well, HRC says on the front page of its website that it is “working for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equal rights,” but that doesn’t make it so.

Barron and Stahura, who reviewed a two-page memorandum and three data sets prepared by Knowledge Networks and provided to the Blade, also noted they could not determine whether the survey is scientific.

Both experts said that lingering question would preclude them from using the survey’s findings in their work.

“I would not approve it for publication,” Stahura said. “I think with the ‘becauses,’ you’re really pushing people toward particular responses in this instance.”

Luna disagreed. He said there was “never any intent to influence survey respondents.”

“We wanted to gain an understanding as best we could of where people were on the issue,” he said. “A number of voices were claiming to speak for the LGBT population, but no one in fact had done the research to know.”

Never any intent to influence survey respondents?

Just when you think the Scampaign has set forth the most preposterous proposition that it possibly could….


November 28, 2007

Quasi-non-ENDA post – from whilst I happen to be sitting in Iowa.  I haven’t bumped into any of the candidate-oids today (though a grad student friend of mine had the displeasure of encountering The Mitt at a Hy-Vee store last week.)

Okay – Barbra Streisand is a great singer (I’ll admit it – I have “Evergreen” on my Ipod) and a pretty good actress (Yentl, anyone?).  And, at one time or another, she’s been married to both of the male leads from the horifically under-appreciated conspiracy flick, Capricorn One

Having said that, I am happy that I was not the only one who cringed at hearing Babs’ presidential endorsement – and noticing that the MSM viewed it as news.

Do the Gays Even Care Who Barbra Streisand Endorses?  The Really Old Gays, Even?

Seriously…when I heard it was Hillary, I began to hope that Babs understands how her endorsement is viewed by, for all practical purposes, anyone outside of her area code – and is actually pulling for Edwards.

The Exception That Proves The Rule (Because, in Part, Its no Exception)

November 28, 2007

I’ve had plenty of nasty things to say here about The John and his neo-Frankist blog – all justified.

Having said that, this is still America (unless something altering that reality was slipped into one of the coke-snorting, draft-dodging, treason-mongering rich brat’s signing statements – which, sadly, is a very real possibility.)  The John has had a few posts recently about his blog apparently being blacked out at some Marriott hotels.

You’ll recall that yesterday we found out that a Marriott hotel in New Jersey was banning AMERICAblog from its business center computers because our site has used the word “lesbian” in our reporting on gay issues. I just got from the following note from a reader alleging that we’re banned in other Marriott hotels as well:

John, I stay at the Marriott Fairfield Inn, downtown Chicago and the Marriott Courtyard Inn downtown Chicago about once a month. They always have Americablog blocked. I was in Concord N.H. last month at a Hampton Inn, and they had Americablog blocked as well, I believe they are part of the Hilton network of hotels. Just thought you would wan’t to know.

This is the kind of issue GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign should be jumping on. It’s not just about AMERICAblog, it’s about every Web site on the Internet that ever mentions gays and lesbians.








See – even when I’m trying to be nice to The John – about what certainly seems to be a very valid complaint that, if true, is indeed something that the entire GLBT community (I can’t say I stay at Marriotts all the time, but I do occasionally) should be concerned about – he forces me yet again to remind everyone who and what he really is. 

Now, I sincerely would hate to find out that there’s a trans person at Marriott who is doing this because of The John’s transphobia and shillery for St. Barney and the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool.  That would be bad for everyone (including the Marriott Corporation as, I’m guessing, it would open the corporation up to civil rights complaints in at least NJ and IL.)

However, I think that people of The John’s ilk have yet to realize the anger that they’ve stoked among those who have been shit on more thoroughly and consistently than someone such as The John could ever comprehend in his worst nightmares.

I’m just sayin’.

Having ‘just said’ that, we probably should be pulling for The John on this one.

HRC Now More Trans-Free Than Ever

November 27, 2007

From Queer Channel Media:

Two transgender members of the Human Rights Campaign quit Tuesday, saying the group’s support of an employment nondiscrimination bill that excluded transgender workers put them “in an untenable position.”

Jamison Green and Donna Rose’s resignations from the Human Rights Campaign’s business council are effective immediately, according to a joint letter.

“Considering recent broken promises, the lack of credibility that HRC has with the transgender community at large, and HRC’s apparent lack of commitment to healing the breach it has caused, we find it impossible to maintain an effective working relationship with the organization,” they said.

Ya think?

Autumn Sandeen at Pam’s House Blend has the full text of the resignation letter as well as some thoughts of her own – and, not surprisingly, there are some comments too.  From Zoe:

“On November 8, the day after the ENDA vote in the House of Representatives, we requested an opportunity to meet personally with HRC President Joe Solmonese to share our concerns and to discuss HRC’s strategy for addressing recent legislative shortcomings before making a decision to stay or go. As the only transgender representatives on the Business Council our community expects us to have some influence, or at least to receive the courtesy of a consultation. Almost 3 weeks have passed since that request and we have heard nothing in response. This lack of response speaks volumes, so we feel compelled to take this stand today.”

You don’t do that to equals. You certainly don’t do that to the people who might have a chance of defusing the situation, not unless they’re just supposed to be “token n… trannies”. This must be heartbreaking for them, walking away from the one part of the HRC that was actually doing some good, and that they were making a real contribution to, a big part of their lives. But the cost of remaining was too high.

I’m still looking for the hue and cry from the community over something else that is not done to equals: freezing us out of of any real opportunity for substantive employment at the Scampaign.  In all candor, I’ve never understood why anyone – much less the still-startling-to-me numbers of trans people who drank the purple-n-yellow kool-aid – would believe than an organization that refuses to treat us as equals in their own hiring practices could ever be trusted to lobby or advocate in any way for any form of civil rights for trans people.

If the Republicans Pull it Out in 2008, Perhaps You’ll Want to Thank This

November 27, 2007

Granted, this is from BP (that’s Baptist Press, not British Petroleum), but it seems pretty straightforward:

The same legal group that successfully sued for legalized “gay marriage” in Massachusetts now wants the federal government to recognize those relationships.

As reported by The Boston Globe, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is considering either filing a lawsuit or lobbying Congress to strike down the section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits the government from recognizing “gay marriage.” If that section is axed, then same-sex couples in Massachusetts will receive the federal legal benefits of marriage.

Trans-exclusion has been consecrated at the federal level – giving the gay marriage addicts of the northeast a green light to conveniently forget to expend any legitimate effort on rectifying any of the gay-only atrocities in New England.  So, should it be any surprise that the same people who poked the sleeping dog sufficiently hard to get dozens of state anti-gay marriage laws and amendments enacted and to get the coke-snorting, draft-dodging treasonous rich brat re-‘elected’ in 2004 are so dazed and confused by their own self-importance and personal greed that they’re setting a course for the same thing to happen in 2008 – a year that, should Americans vote their true consciences and pocketbooks instead of their manufactured homo-fears, Democrats shold take the White House and 80% of both houses of Congress?

Currently, though, GLAD says it is not trying to overturn the section of DOMA that gives states the option of not recognizing another state’s “gay marriage”


Basic economic justice for trans people?  Sorry…NO RIGHTS FOR YOU!  We must obey the Incremental Progress Ghods!

Gay marriage?  Everything must take a back seat – no matter how much damage that we all know will result (and has already resulted) from letting gay marriage get behind the wheel. 


November 27, 2007

My dear friend Gwen Smith and her spouse Bon lost a member of their family yesterday – a wonderful cat named Idgie.

 Idgie D. Cat

So long, Idgie.  Say hi to Tucker, Tabby and Mr. Red for me.