A Day Without Sunshine is Like History With Queer Channel Media

December 28, 2007

See anything missing here?

April 24, 2007 — ENDA (H.R. 2015) introduced in the House by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Deborah Price (R-Ohio) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and includes a gender identity clause.

Sept. 26 — A preliminary whip count reportedly shows a trans-inclusive ENDA would fall at least 30 votes short. With Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s consent, Frank introduces a new “sexual orientation-only” version of ENDA (H.R. 3685) with a separate bill that would ban job discrimination based on gender identity. Frank calls for hearings on the gender identity bill, but says it doesn’t have enough support to bring it up for a vote anytime soon. Frank also says it’s unwise to push a vote that could result in defeat as it makes it harder to bring up later as members of Congress aren’t likely to change their votes risking accusations of flip-flopping on a controversial issue. Some speculate 60 votes would be needed to pass ENDA in the Senate to overcome a filibuster.

Oct. 2 — HRC announces its board has voted to reaffirm its 2004 position not to support ENDA without trans protections but HRC President Joe Solmonese angers trans activists and leaders of other gay groups by saying HRC will not encourage members of Congress to vote against a gay-only bill.

Funny – in QCM’s “ENDA timeline” that “shows how the bill has progressed since 1974,” I don’t see anything about Mighty Joe Youngmonese’s pack of lies delivered to speech at Southern Comfort in September.

I also think its miiiiiiiiiiighty convenient that the biggest queer media pimp of the ‘incremental progress’ lie chose only to make it an ENDA timeline and not a timeline showing overall progress on trans rights – which, of course, would show that so-called ‘incremental progress’ has, thus far, proven to be the greatest failure among all strategies to secure trans inclusion.

A queer media organ without context is like…

well, you know.


Time for the incremental approach in Georgia!

December 26, 2007

So, a hate-crimes bill in the state of Georgia is in trouble because it includes protections for gay and lesbian people:

A bipartisan effort to restore Georgia’s hate crimes law could become bogged down in a behind-the-scenes debate over whether to include gays and lesbians in its reach, according to those familiar with the issue.

A state Senate study committee must decide by mid-January whether to proceed with the legislation, which is supported by a broad array of prosecutors, religious and civil rights groups — and GBI Director Vernon Keenan.

“We understand that there are legislators who are going to be more skeptical about the bill if it includes sexual orientation,” said Bill Nigut, regional director of the Anti-Defamation League. Nigut said his group nonetheless supports the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the legislation.

Sadie Fields, leader of the Georgia Christian Alliance, said she doesn’t necessarily agree with the concept behind a hate crimes measure. “We definitely would oppose any legislation that included sexual orientation,” said Fields, who spearheaded the effort to incorporate a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution in 2004.

Cathy Woolard, former president of the Atlanta City Council, is a lobbyist for Georgia Equality, an advocacy group for gays and lesbians. Woolard said she considers extending hate crime coverage to homosexuals as the primary sticking point in the Legislature. Without it, she said, “I think it would go through in a minute.”

I am very concerned about the 2.9 million African-Americans Georgians who have been homojacked and are being held hostage by far-left gay-rights activists. Not to mention 281,000 or so Asian Americans, some half-million people who speak Spanish at home, and a strong Jewish community.

The solution, as I see it, is for the gay-rights extremists to simply back down and allow the bill to go through to protect people whose national origins, ethnicities, or races place them in danger as potential victims of hate crimes.

Once the hate crimes bill is passed, it will be easy to just go back and add in gays and lesbians at a later date. When exactly did sexual orientation get added to “race, religion, …, ancestry or nation of origin?” Did any people of color actually get to have their say as to whether gays could crash the party?

Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of gay and lesbian rights. I just don’t know what black people or Asians or Jews or Latinos have in common with a man who wants to act like a woman and take some other man’s penis into his anus or his mouth.

It’s clear to me that the incremental approach gets results — and that’s why I can’t understand why Bill Nigut of the ADL is willing to turn his back on his Jewish brothers and sisters by supporting this homojacking.

Can’t the gays just get their own civil rights movement instead of trying to piggyback on someone else’s? Can’t they just be happy for the Asians and Latinos that they’re getting protected from hate crimes?

Why is it all-or-nothing? Isn’t it better to protect those who you can protect, rather than asking for everyone to be protected and losing it for everyone? Some have asked if perhaps gays and lesbians want Blacks and Jews to be attacked — I can’t say I am convinced of that, but what do you think?

As for me, I say “no” to the homojacking of the Georgia hate crimes bill!

…did I do that right, John?


Barney Frank: Die, You Worthless Trannies

December 21, 2007

Okay, those weren’t his exact words.  But, as Rebecca Juro reports over at Bilerico, they might as well have been.

No trans-inclusive ENDA, even with a Democrat in the White House. The rights of the poor and disenfrancised minorities sold out once again by Congressional Democrats on the altar of political convenience, this time two years in advance. They’re not going to bother to even try to do the right thing by gender-variant Americans anymore.

How does Becky know that there will not even be an attempt at a non-transphobic ENDA even in 2009?

Well, St. Barney of Fuck the Trannies was on the Scampaign’s slick propaganda vehicle, The Agenda, back on Monday.  Becky has the entirety of the choice quote transcribed, but here’s the money shot:

[B]y the end of 2009 the Employment Non-Discrimination Law will become law. It will be illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation anywhere in the country. A hate crimes law including protection for people who are transgender will have passed. And we will be, at that point, well on our way to try to extend this to people who are transgender and to getting rid of the ban of gays in the military.

2009?

Trannies in ENDA?

You jest? 

Becky asks – sarcastirhetorically – if anyone is surprised.

Sadly, you know that some will be – as they’re giving $35.00 gift cards to Joe Solmonese and the non-trans folks of privilege on Rhode Island Avenue.


One More Reason to Hate Queer Channel Media

December 20, 2007

Hillary for president

‘Nuff said.


We Want Names

December 20, 2007

From a Queer Channel Media Q&A with N.M. Governor Bill Richardson:

Washington Blade: Why should lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans vote for you as president?

Bill Richardson: Because I, by far, have the best record, not just the record of voting right but of pushing for gay and GLBT legislation throughout my career as a congressman and as a governor, particularly as a governor. I believe I have the most far-reaching legislative record in a red state than any other governor. In fact, I think New Mexico and New York are considered the most pro gay-lesbian states in terms of rights simply because I’ve taken leadership positions and not just supported them.

I’ve taken the lead, as you probably know, on a number of pieces of legislation. Hate crimes [legislation] with [protections for] gender identity — I pushed that in 2003 against the advice of gay rights activists who thought it would be too controversial. I pushed it and got it done by one vote. I passed executive orders preventing discrimination against gays in the state workplace. We passed legislation preventing discrimination against gay people. … I put a domestic partnership bill on the legislative agenda last year. We lost by one vote, and I’m going to put it up again in January.

So by far I’ve got the strongest record and the gay civil rights community should, in my judgment, support me, not because I have the best position papers or give the best speeches but what I’ve done as a governor to advance the legislation, and that I would champion this legislation. These efforts in the Congress, if I were president, I would repeal DOMA. I would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I would push for a hate crimes bill. It looks like the Senate and the Congress has failed to pass one. In addition to that, they eliminated from the Armed Services bill a vitally important amendment. So that’s what I would do.

Who were they?

We want names.

And, no, this isn’t doubting Gov. Richardson.  Rather, we want to know who tried to cut us from the bill and got proven wrong – just in case said personages attempt to excerise said alleged expertise in another state or at the federal level.


Analysis of the Human Right Scampaign’s Latest Bit O’ Insulting Tokenism

December 20, 2007

[LINK UPDATED, 9/6/2009]

If I was in a really snarky mood, I’d criticize Christine Beatty for suggesting coal for the Scampaign as an Xmas gift because they don’t even deserve that – and there are lots of people who will be cold enough this winter that even a single chunk of coal would be a step in the right direction for their fortunes. 

When Santa makes his naughty or nice list for 2007, the Human Rights Campaign will find a huge lump of coal in its stocking for its betrayal of the transgender community and our true supporters.

However, Beatty’s op-ed in this week’s Bay Area Reporter [Kat’s addition, 9/6/2009: Here is the permalink to that op-ed] is too good to even make a joke-snark at:

I can only look at HRC with further disgust for its plans to use [Susan] Stanton or another to try to help stem the erosion of support since its sell-out. It will take far more than tokenism to regain our trust; it will take the removal of all those in HRC that supported the ENDA betrayal. You’re not fooling anybody, HRC, least of all the transgender community.

Might I suggest a chunk of recycled concrete for the Scampaign instead?  Or maybe a 55-gallon drum built for a cadre of 100?


Why Might That Be, Oh Official Gay Massachusetts-oids?

December 20, 2007

From the historically-transphobic-then-not-so-transphobic-but-during-the-2007-ENDA-debacle-more-transphobic-than-not Bay Windows: thoughts from Susan Ryan-Vollmar on what the future agenda for Mass Equality should be. 

First task for the new MassEquality should be passage of the trans rights bill

A proper conclusion and a blunt title.

Props to Susan.

[T]he issue that looms largest over all others is trans rights. The disparities in legal protections enjoyed by lesbian and gay citizens and the Commonwealth’s transmen and women is shocking. As MassEquality gears up for its future, surely passage of the trans rights bill should be priority number one.

House Bill 1722 would add gender identity and expression to the state’s anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. It’s currently sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, where many expect it will have a hearing in early next year. 

That’s good for some elaboration.  Now, for a bit of a problem.

It will be a steep road to passage. We’re not likely to see the massive groundswell of support that helped protect civil marriage rights. That’s because everyone understands marriage — even those who have no desire to marry. But some of our most ardent allies in the State House will begin this debate by asking what a transgender person is. It’s up to all of us to answer that question and to make sure lawmakers understand the vital need for this legislation.

It may well be up to all of ‘us’ – but, to bastardize a famous truism, some of ‘us’ have a more equal duty in that regard than others, namely those who are allowed to make a living advocating on LGBT matters. 

If, in 2008, “some of our most ardent allies in the State House will begin this debate by asking what a transgender person is,” then WHY?  Why might that be?  Why, by this point, have all friendly Massachusetts legislators not had it pointed out to them that in 1981, eight years before Massachusetts enacted a gay-only rights law, it enacted legislation recognizing the reality of transsexualism? 

Yes, a transsexual birth certificate statute is not the same as an employment anti-discrimination statute – but it is an act of the legislature expressing understanding of the main legal aspect of the lives of the people who most need that 1989 gay-only travesty rectified.  It is something to point to when asking legislators to rectify that 1989 transphobic atrocity.

But, pointing it out requires anyone doing such pointing to implicitly reject the Aravosis-Capehart-Crain-Carpenter ‘trans people didn’t bother showing up until a few years ago’ narrative of gay rights history.

And that, they will not do.

Its a sad reality, but many of those who claim to want that 1989 law rectified would rather see the current state of affairs remain in place than admit that, had it not been for gay-led transphobia of years past, there would be no impediment to trans-inclusion at any level.