Proof of the New Agenda: All Marriage, All the Time

And, oh so conveniently, there’s no ‘KatRose’ around to explain in detail the history of gays and lesbians lying to trans people to sell us ‘incremental progress’, only to move into high marriage gear thereafter.

Delaware is smelling a lot like New York and Massachusetts these days:

[H]ere’s a special note to Pam’s House Blend from Bill [Humphrey, the statewide director for Delaware Right to Marry Political Action Committee.]

We at Delaware Right to Marry are grateful for the chance to address readers of Pam’s House Blend directly today. If you read the “About” page by Pam, she cites “the right to marry” as one of the issues that led her to start the site in the first place. It’s an interesting choice of words: the right to marry. A lot of people don’t think marriage is a right. Having grown up in Massachusetts during the transition to marriage equality, I firmly believe that it is a right (as you can tell by our organization’s name), and it’s one of the reasons I started the organization last year here in Delaware, where I now live.In April 2009, Nate Silver estimated that Delaware voters would be ready to accept marriage equality by 2011 if it were put to a vote. However, unlike in many states, there is no ballot initiative process (which is a good thing since people should not be able to vote on other people’s rights), nor is there an equal rights clause in the state’s constitution to allow for a court ruling in favor of marriage equality, as in Massachusetts or Iowa. So in Delaware we have to go the legislative route. That means appealing to legislators, by showing them that marriage equality is right and (we hope) popular. That’s where you come in.

And, of course, its where we go down the crapper.  But alas, I smell a dangling carrot:

A note to the transgender community: We are very supportive of promoting transgender rights in the state of Delaware, and members of our staff are heavily involved in other projects for transgender individuals outside our organization. For example, our assistant director is currently leading a project for gender-neutral housing options for students living on campus at the University of Delaware.

While, our organization right now is solely single-issue (marriage equality for same-sex couples), there are other organizations in the state with a broader policy agenda for LGBT people, and my assumption is that they are working to add transgender protections at some point in the near future.

At this point, refer back to an old Odd Couple episode in which the word “assume” is dissected.

Here’s my dissection of this scam:

  • He expects his claim of being “very supportive of promoting transgender rights” to be taken more seriously than similar claims of gay organizations that nevertheless are willing to bite the bullet and accept gay-only laws
  • “Other projects” could mean sponsoring Shirley Q. Liquor’s Great Chesapeake Tour 2011 – and is far more likely to mean something like that than anything which will actually result in trans people gaining any substantive rights in Delaware.
  • “I am personally supportive of transgender rights and in the future, it may be something we add to our mission” means that, in Delaware, its 1994 – if you’re not in the gay marriage primcy crowd.

Its all marriage, all the time.

Its all marriage, all the time.

Its all marriage, all the time.

Bill’s working to get marriage equality onto Delaware’s legislative agenda this session. And if it gets off the ground, its got a good chance of passing. The problem is, it’s been a long time since anyone checked in with good people of Delaware about how they feel about LGBT issues.

Well, if all they’re going to be ‘checking in’ on is gay marriage, then they still won’t be checking in about T issues. But…

Its all marriage, all the time.

Its all marriage, all the time.

Its all marriage, all the time.

So, who gives a rat’s ass about trans people, eh?  I am curious as to whether anyone ‘checked in’ with the “good people of Delaware” before the Delaware gay elite took to convincing the state’s legislature to give gays and lesbians the right to discriminate against trans people a few years ago.

[T]the extremists in Delaware must be pretty dispirited that their teabagger Queen Christine O’Donnell got Royally trounced in the last election.

Then I guess all of the trans people who are never able to compete with gays and lesbians on a level playing field for employment in Delaware must be positively orgasmic.  After all, we’re supposed to celebrate a legal landscape in which a group of second-class – yet nevertheless overprivileged – citizens usurp the civil rights engine of legislative power to create a third-class caste.

Per a commenter at PHB:

[H]istory has taught us repeatedly that once marriage rights are won in a given state, the major organizations disband and their activists and funding sources disappear, heading toward the next marriage battle, just as we have recently witnessed in both Massachusetts and Connecticut.


Better watch it.

That’s the legal reality that dare not speak its name.

 At least, for certain names.

16 Responses to Proof of the New Agenda: All Marriage, All the Time

  1. […] *proof-of-the-new-agenda-all-marriage-all-the-time // Share| AKPC_IDS += "2203,";   0 Comments Leave A Response […]

  2. libhomo says:

    Marriage is a failed and oppressive hetero institution. It isn’t worth fighting for.

    • Kathleen says:

      Roight you are, guvner

      “Alfred Doolittle –  Alfred Doolittle is Eliza’s father, an elderly but vigorous dustman who has had at least six wives and who “seems equally free from fear and conscience.” When he learns that his daughter has entered the home of Henry Higgins, he immediately pursues to see if he can get some money out of the circumstance. His unique brand of rhetoric, an unembarrassed, unhypocritical advocation of drink and pleasure (at other people’s expense), is amusing to Higgins. Through Higgins’ joking recommendation, Doolittle becomes a richly endowed lecturer to a moral reform society, transforming him from lowly dustman to a picture of middle class morality–he becomes miserable”

  3. Rebecca Juro says:

    “That’s the legal reality that dare not speak its name.”? What about MY name Kat? That was my comment. Just sayin’.

    By the way, I’ll have something to say on this tonight on the show.

  4. “Well, if all they’re going to be ‘checking in’ on is gay marriage, then they still won’t be checking in about T issues”

    Hi, we were actually already considering adding a question on transgender rights to our poll. Do you have a suggestion for us? Please feel free to email in the next few days with suggestions. We think it’s a great idea to ask about the T in LGBT.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    • Kathleen says:

      Wow – Bill – how very noble of you. You’ll ask a question about trans rights in a poll.

      That’ll definitely help someone feed their kids.

    • Rebecca Juro says:

      Well Mr. Humphrey, it’s kind of difficult to see the credibility of an organization called “Delaware Right to Marry” taking suggestions on fighting for trans rights. As you yourself said over on PHB, you’re a one-issue organization.

      The real-world translation of that position for transfolks is that yours is an organization that focuses exclusively on yourselves and ignores the rights of others who don’t fit into the narrow frame of gays who wish to marry.

      Whether it’s Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Iowa, or Connecticut, history teaches us that once organizations like yours achieve their goals, Mr. Humphrey, they quickly dissolve and leave the rest of us hanging.

      In my opinion, it is foolish in the extreme to support or fail to speak out against an organization such as yours, Mr. Humphrey, because the inevitable result of not doing so is unacceptable for transpeople or for anyone who believe that American civil rights are for all Americans, not just the wealthy and politically connected.

      • Why do you keep saying it’s “an organization that focuses exclusively on yourselves?” Of the four senior staff members, 3 (including me) are straight. We started in November, whereas all the other LGBT groups in the state have existed for years. We’re working on this one issue because they won’t. You should be taking up your complaint with them, not with us. Our bill is 2 pages long right now and focuses only on marriage. We have absolutely zero expertise in what language would have to be attached to amend the previous non-discrimination legislation, even if we thought it was feasible to attach it to our bill. The other groups have lawyers and money, of which we have neither. I really think you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

        By the way, I’m from Massachusetts, and I have no idea where you got the idea that all the LGBT organizations dissolved and left because marriage equality happened. Groups supporting trans rights have been expanding there, not folding.

  5. Rebecca Juro says:

    Massachusetts, along with Connecticut, are prime examples of what happens when same-sex marriage is won before trans rights…not to mention New Hampshire. Since you come from Mass. Mr. Humphrey, in your opinion do you believe that the same amount of financial support and manpower is currently being directed toward gaining transgender rights in that state as was the case when marriage was still on the table there?

    Perhaps you’ve heard of Love Makes a Family in Connecticut? I’d understand if you hadn’t. After all, once they gained same-sex marriage in that state, they quickly dissolved the organization and the activists moved on to other causes. Yeah, we’re still making progress there though, slowly. Hartford now has a new law, making something like 19 jurisdictions in the state that protect us. Rah. Rah.

    This is what we’ve come to expect, but at least these are states which don’t specifically exclude us from the protections of their civil rights laws. Apparently even that hard reality isn’t enough to get some who wish to be seen as inclusive to focus on the issues of greatest need.

    The simple truth, Mr. Humphrey, is that no one will die because they can’t get legally married. Conversely, people can and do die every day because they are unable to feed themselves and their families and keep roofs over their heads. One issue is quite literally life and death, the other is not. As far as I’m concerned, that settles the priority question once and for all.

  6. Kathleen says:

    Bill Humphrey says:
    January 15, 2011 at 11:18 am
    You did explicitly criticize us because you thought the poll wouldn’t cover trans people.

    I don’t remember ever commenting on the poll.

  7. Kathleen says:

    Marriage – it’s all that’s on the menu:

    Yosemite Sam: Hmm… Tossed coconut salad.
    [pours liquid from a coconut]
    Yosemite Sam: Fresh coconut milk.
    [opens a key cake plate, then sniffs]
    Yosemite Sam: New England boiled coconut.
    [suddenly closes the key cake plate]
    Yosemite Sam: Oooh, I… hates coconuts!
    [tosses his meal away]

    Say – who runs this restaurant?

  8. TransGriot says:

    And don’t think we aren’t watching what’s going on in Maryland. they have a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor, and what do we hear is the first thing they want to tackle?

    Gay marriage.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: