Yes, marriage is the measuring cock – the standard by which a state is to be judged as being either progressive or backward.
As po’ pi’ful Kevin Naff laments:
Maryland, my backward Maryland
Of course, you’ll find nothing in his snifflefest about the fact that Maryland still is a state that gives people such as himself the special – backward – right to discriminate against trans people.
AFTER LAST YEAR’S high court ruling upholding straight-only marriage in Maryland, many residents of the state — including me — had high hopes for the 2008 legislative session.
Surely, many of us thought, the state’s Democratic lawmakers would right the judicial wrong inflicted by the slimmest of majorities, 4-3. But instead of courageous leadership on a pressing civil rights issue, the state’s politicians quickly reverted to type, abandoning progress and embracing the safe confines of the status quo.
No marriage. No civil unions. Not even domestic partnerships for gays living in a so-called “blue state” where Democrats enjoy monopolistic control of both houses in the legislature and the governor’s mansion.
So, you can work in Maryland without fear – even without the fear of ever having to endure the indignity of accepting the notion that a transsexual woman is equal to you.
T’aint good ’nuff, eh?
So, certainly, if Maryland had taken away your special right to discriminate against trans people, that would not change your view of Maryland as “backward”?
Ya gotta hand it to Queer Channel Media. Its consistent.
Of course, there is one new wrinkle in their ‘all gay marriage, all the time’ programming: a slight doff of the hat to the notion of ‘incremental progress’ on the issue of gay marriage.
Of course, it comes from a dubious source.
Given all the Democratic opposition to marriage, why didn’t Equality Maryland pursue more realistic goals, like civil unions?
That question was posed by Stephen Clark, a professor at Albany Law School who is gay and tracks civil rights issues. The answer to that question is that Equality Maryland’s board members and donors wanted to pursue an all-or-nothing strategy — and they got just about nothing. Civil unions are an imperfect solution, as evidenced by the legal mess they’ve created in New Jersey, but they’re a start.
Ah yes…Stephen Clark.
You remember him, I hope. He’s the spinmeister who Queer Channel Media allowed to put forth the patently inaccurate ‘theory’ (some will say ‘theory’; I say ‘lie’) that most trans-inclusive state civil rights laws have only come into being because the trans aspect has benefitted from “concealment.” His analysis was so far off the mark that, were it part of a representation of a person or entity, said person or entity would have a good case for a legal malpractice claim (and was also, in my view, actually unethical – probably to the point that it would have put his law license in jeopardy.) Recall that I conclusively ripped his ‘theory’ to shreds back in November.
To be fair to Clark, I can say one quasi-positive thing: He does appear to be one of the few incrementalism addicts who is wiling to apply ‘incremental progress’ to the issue of gay marriage.
At the end of the day, that doesn’t make him – or Queer Channel Media – any more accurate, honest, ethical, or even sane, of course.
For what all of this boils down to for Kavin Naff is: If Iowa, to take an example from middle America, says no to gay marriage, even though it has recognized transsexual existence for 32 years and even though it enacted a trans-inclusive civil rights law last year, it would still be “backward.”
Trans-Jim Crow-ery is still bigotry.
Shilling is still shilling.
And bullshit is still bullshit.
To them, trans people are still nothing.
And to them, our legal victories are just as non-existent as a pile of Munchkin shit.