Gay Marriage Scoreboard

From a comment to a piece about HB235 on the Baltimore Sun’s website:

The transgender community has created a mess here that they do not have the skill or capacity to clean up. Rookies!!!! Our legislature is not going to take up your issue cuz you guys seem a mess.

I guess I missed the expertly deft handling of the now-enacted-into-law Maryland gay marriage bill.

Disinformation Station

Memo to any Maryland legislator who still is considering believing anything that ‘Equality’ Maryland has to say about, well…, anything:

The ‘memo’ isn’t the text in that image.

Rather, its the fact that that paragraph (or at least the final fifteen words of it) is still on ‘Equality’ Maryland’s website on the last day of March in 2011 – many weeks after (1) Sandy Rawls barfed up the kool-aid and realized that HB235 is not the caliber of bill that she actually wants to see enacted in Maryland, and (2) ‘Equality Maryland became aware that Sandy had barfed up its Kool-Aid 235 isotope.

One last thing…

I’m curious…

Does pointing out this act of disinformation by a gay organization make me homophobic? Or defamer-phobic? Or just HTML-programmer-phobic?

Inquiring non-bugs want to know.

Okay…If Not Wal-Mart, Maybe MTV – His Former Employer as a Reality Show-oid – Will Give Him a Moonlighting Gig

The christofascist Republicans…

They do implode, don’t they?

First the Republican Party in Polk County, Wisconsin, pulled the tape of Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) fretting about making ends meet on his $174,000 a year salary from its own website. Now they want it gone from the whole Internet.

For a couple hours, the local county GOP was successful. But we’ve put an excerpt of the video back up.

A day after TPM posted the video we obtained of Duffy talking about his salary at a Polk County town hall meeting earlier this year, the Polk County GOP contacted the video provider we used to host the video, Blip.tv, and demanded the video be taken down.

The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV’s The Real World.

Here’s some friendly advice for Wisconsin christofascist Republicans: Get in contact with ‘Equality’ Maryland.  It has lots of experience making things critical of it disappear.

Americhristia

From AlterNet:

Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told his students that when we were his age — he was then close to 80 — we would all be fighting the “Christian fascists.”

The warning, given 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and television evangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts toward taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government.

…

The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic — to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true — the very essence of the totalitarian state.

Its about the budget…

…though it is really about busting unions…

…which is really about turning the entirety of the American middle class into a roving, hungry Dickensian sweatshop-for-hire…

…which is really about making anyone whose net worth is under eight figures subject to – and willing to accept – christianist totalitarianism.

Fine, Then Quit…

…and get a job at Wal-Mart.

At a town hall meeting in Polk County, Wisconsin earlier this year, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) was asked whether he’d vote to cut his $174,000 annual salary.

…

Here’s what Duffy says about his salary:

I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I’m living high on the hog, I’ve got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I’m not living high on the hog.

To be fair, he eventually did say that he’d accept a pay decrease.

On the other hand, if he’s tying his procreativity to his, ahem…, near poverty, perhaps he should have kept is dick in his pants and not had so many kids?

After all…

Isn’t ‘don’t have kids that you can’t pay for’ what conservatives always preach to poor people (while simultaneously supporting restrictions on the availability of contraceptives)?

Just Think of it This Way: Its Just the Attempt by all of the Closeted Homosexual Republican Men to Pretend to be Heterosexual

Bluecollarmamma declares:

I’ll stay out of your churches if you stay the fuck out of my vagina.

Now, context:

[A]re you having pains in your lady bits lately? Well, look down. It’s from all those GOP dildos trying to get all up in your vag

…

I just found out the # of anti-choice bills being decided on this year…351!! If you’re not mad yet, you should be

…

Oh, and WHERE ARE THE FUCKING JOBS?!

Haven’t you heard?  Now that the christianist party is in power, we’re not supposed to talk about jobs:

Translation: Gay Marriage Greed Killed Trans Rights (Even a Diseased Version Thereof)

From the Baltimore Sun:

After the House of Delegates this weekend voted overwhelmingly to prohibit employer and housing discrimination for the transgendered, the bill crossed over to the Senate Monday where it landed in an unusual committee: Senate rules.

…

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said that his chamber is engaged with the budget now and is unlikely to take up the bill.

“When we are through with the budget we’ll have time to deal with other issues that might have a chance of passage,” he said after the morning session. “At this point in time I’d say the chances of passage of that bill are next to none.”

He said the Senate has raised the issue in previous session, only to see it fail. “There are not the votes to move it in committee,” he predicted.

Miller noted that his chamber “spent a lot of time” on “important social issues” earlier in the session that died in the House of Delegates. The Senate passed a landmark bill legalizing same-sex marriage, only to see their efforts wilt when votes could not be secured for House passage.

So again we see that the greediness of pushing gay marriage ahead of the morally appropriate agenda item of fully rectifying an existing anti-trans, gay-only rights legal regime kills not only any chance of fully disposing of the special right of gays and lesbians to discriminate against trans people (which, however much the Flying Marriage Monkeys of Maryland, New Hampshire, Sockpuppetland and Beyond may howl that its not so, is in reality the legal framework established by gay-only rights laws) but even any chance of passing even a bill like the incrementally transphobic HB235.

Did anyone in any way connected with ‘Equality’ Maryland even consider the possibility that, going into 2011,  the principled position to take would be to legitimately bargain with state legislators by being willing to take gay marriage completely off the table in return for the minimum support necessary to enact a legitimate trans rights bill, thereby putting a stop to the evil that was unleashed on the state in 2001?

Or…

Was pushing gay marriage ahead of everything else priority one – with the diseased HB235 being the second piece of cake for dessert that they might get to snag after all of the gay marriage celebrations but, if not, then no big deal because ‘its only the trannies and what happens to them hasn’t really mattered for a decade so one more decade (or two or three) won’t really matter to the people who matter’?

The goal all along? Whose goal?

In your hearts, you know who.

You all know who.

So Remind Us Again as to Why a Trans-Inclusive ENDA Wasn’t Used as an “Organizing Effort” From Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007?

You do realize that ‘Equality’ Maryland has been Barney Frank’s farm team this spring, right?  To gauge just what sort of transphobic kool-aid language that just enough trans people will drink in order for him to act as though he’s introducing a trans-inclusive ENDA when he really isn’t?

Well, the end game is near on the anti-trans HB 235 – which means a new ENDA is afoot:

METRO WEEKLY: Are you going to be introducing ENDA this week?

REP. BARNEY FRANK: Yeah, we’re definitely going introduce it, [although the specifics regarding timing are still being worked out.]

MW: What do you expect to accomplish this year with ENDA?

FRANK: It’s an organizing tool. Obviously, with the Republicans in power, you’re not going to get the bill even considered. But, we have work still to do and we have overwhelming – over 90 percent – support on the Democratic side for ENDA based on sexual orientation and we had, in the last Congress, about 30 Republicans that way. Unfortunately, there’s a drop-off from that number to transgender, and this is a chance to work hard to sway those who are committed to ENDA to support the full transgender inclusion as well.

This is an organizing effort. I’m going to be urging people to spend their time talking to those who have voted in the past for ENDA and are supportive of ENDA but where we’re not certain they’re still with us on the transgender issue. So, that’s what – having a bill before you makes it easier to organize people to do that.

I get that ENDA is DOA in the curent Congress.

So, yes, believe it or not that means I’m in agreement with St. Barney on something.

But if the 2011-13 Congress is an “organizing effort,” then what were the Republican-controlled House sessions from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007? 

Drag shows? 

BDSM parties?

Ronald Reagan film festivals?

Before anyone says it: Yes, in and of itself, asking why a trans-inclusive ENDA was never used as an “organizing effort” from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007 (or, for that matter, why it wasn’t openly used as a real bargaining chip to actually pass the type of gay-only ENDA that we all actually know that St. Barney actually wants) isn’t going to accomplish the goal of getting a trans-inclusive ENDA passed. 

But it should give people pause when hearing St. Barney announce what he claims is his strategy – not simply about whether he’s telling the truth but also about the competence behind such a strategy even if he is telling the truth.

MW: What do you say to the people who say this job should have been done in the 111th Congress?

FRANK: I would say to them: We got hate crimes done, and we got “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, and you can’t do everything at once. And that, in fact, the problem was what I just said to you: There was a fall-off – a significant one on the Republican side and some on the Democratic side – because the votes may not be there for an inclusive ENDA.

Or maybe he’s just using the leftover dog whistle from Annapolis.

Demanding That We Forget is Transphobia

A comment by laughriotgirl on one of the threads at PHB wherein refusing to bend over and take gay transphobia is branded as homophobia:

What bothers me Is that we are expected to just forget things happened

That was in response to yet another attempt to exercise control over what trans people are allowed to remember in polite company:

What has John Aravosis said recently that is offensive? If you can show me, I will bring it up with him. What has Elizabeth Birch said or done recently that is offensive?

Well, I’ll be impolite and respond with a question: What has Ronald Reagan done to negatively affect air traffic safety lately? 

Literal answer: not much. 

Accurate answer that requires a working knowledge of history and the temerity to be willing to apply it: His union-busting shenanigans of thirty years ago are still being felt today in the form of a substandard overall framework of air traffic controlling.

Why hasn’t there been anything 2007-ish from The Mouth of The John of late?

Well, one possibility is that he’s actually changed.

Another possibility is that since October 2007 there hasn’t been a trans-inclusive ENDA for him to declare to be in imminent need of de-transing in order to pass because there hasn’t really been an ENDA at all!

But that’s not a direct analogy to Bonzo and PATCO.

What has Elizabeth Birch said or done recently that is offensive?

Ah…Bonzo is in the building!

Literal answer: not much – at least I assume.  But I can’t profess to know.  Nevertheless, I’ll leave it at “not much.” 

Accurate answer that requires a working knowledge of history and the temerity to be willing to apply it: Her tenure at HRC helped to solidify the acceptable-for-appearances-sake-yet-acceptably-expendable-in-real-policy-terms otherness of trans people’s relationship to national gay advocacy. Given that it is now spring and opening day is this week, look at it in baseball terms: If Elizabeth Birch’s tenure of transphobia-in-reality (Maryland is a “discrimination-free zone”) was, collectively, Babe Ruth’s 714 home runs, then Joe Solmonese’s speech to Southern Comfort in 2007 – and the lies it represented – corresponds to Barry Bonds’ 756th home run, not even to Hank Aaron’s 715th.  (What would be a proper analogue to Hank and 715?  SONDA perhaps?)

Elizabeth Birch’s transpobic tenure at HRC is no more irrelevant to what is transpiring today – and no more deserving of being forgotten – than what the original head of HRC(F), Steve Endean, did in Minnesota five years before HRC(F) was ever founded.  The fact that he’s long-since dead and that Minneapolis – and eventually Minnesota – eventually got the trans-inclusive laws they deserved in the first instance is irrelevant.

It all happened.

If you’re a trans person and want to drink the ‘incremental progress’ kool-aid, I can’t stop you.  On the other hand, you can drink all of that kool-aid that you want – but the rest of us aren’t going to forget.

Remember the Alamo!

Remember Goliad!

Remember that by 1979 the largest jurisdiction in the country with a gay rights law had a gay rights law that was trans-inclusive!

Remember what else happened in 1979!

Remember what else happened in 1979!

Remember Wisconsin!

Remember New York City 1986-2002!

Remember Massachusetts!

Remember Connecticut!

Remember New Hampshire!

Remember Hawaii!

Remember gay-only Vermont!*

Remember gay-only New Jersey!*

Remember Rhode Island 1995-2001!

Remember Nevada!

Remember California 1999-2003!

Remember that HRC declared Maryland to be a “discrimination-free zone” once gays got everything that they were asking for in 2001!

Remember that Cathy Brennan declared that if you opposed the 2001 gay-only bill specificaly because you wanted a legitimate, trans-inclusive bill instead, then you were “anti-gay”!

[After being reminded by Monica Roberts] Remember the Texas James Byrd Hate Crime Law!

Remember SONDA!

Remember Delaware!

Remember that Joe Solmonese is a proven liar!

Remember Barney “Oz” Frank!

Remember John “How did the T get in LGBT” Aravosis!

Oh…

Apparently we’re not allowed to remember all of that?

Demanding that we forget is transphobia – and when that demand comes from a trans person, its just plain sad.

*Sorry, but I’m blanking on the exact periods of gay-only-ness for those two states – but both became gay-only in the early 1990s and then became statutorily legitimate in the latter half of the first decade of the 21st century.

Why ‘Transphobic Con Artists’ is About the Nicest Way That One Can Describe ‘Equality’ Maryland

Seen recently in the comments to an ENDABlog post:

I find it endlessly amusing that you call yourself a legal historian with little regard for facts, law or history. Sad bullying narcissist.

Not surprisingly, that was from one of ‘Equality’ Maryland’s chief propagandapologists, Cathy Brennan.

Now, seen recently on the ‘Equality’ Maryland Facebook page:

The person who, eight hours ago, was being allowed to post on Facebook in the name of ‘Equality’ Maryland – and who may or may not be the same person who made that comment to the ENDABlog post – was making an analogy via a question.

Or, well, attempting to do so.

Now, here’s the history that one needs to be aware of before digesting that analogy:

1. 1974-1993: Federal gay rights proposals were (a) proposals to add “sexual orientation” in general to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (b) not trans-inclusive, but (c) were, simply by existing as bills and not even as law, nevertleless used by some courts as rationalization to rule against transsexuals in sex discrimination cases.
2. 1994-2006: Federal gay rights proposals (a) were, because of a blanket concession by Barney Frank, HRC(F), et. al., known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because they only addressed employment; and (b) were not trans-inclusive.
3. 2007: The federal gay rights proposal (a) was, because of a blanket concession by Barney Frank, HRC, et. al., known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it only addressed employment; and (b) was trans-inclusive as HR 2015.
4. 2007-8: The federal gay rights proposal (a) was, because of a blanket concession by Barney Frank, HRC, et. al., known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it only addressed employment; and (b) was, thanks to a backroom deal that had been arranged even before Joe Solmonese openly lied to trans people at Souther Comfort about HRC’s level of support for trans-inclusivity, hay-only as HR 3685.
5. 2009-10: The federal gay rights proposal (a) was, because of a blanket concession by Barney Frank, HRC, et. al., known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it only addressed employment; and (b) was trans-inclusive (though we don’t know how trans-exterminationist it would have become via the ‘mark-up’ language that The Quisling claims not to have seen.)

This will come as a great shock to the person who, eight hours ago, was being allowed to post on Facebook in the name of ‘Equality’ Maryland (and will likely dishearten to the point of drinking/depression/suicide anyone who may have taught that person logic, analogies and/or legal reasoning and given the person who, eight hours ago, was being allowed to post on Facebook in the name of ‘Equality’ Maryland a passing grade in any or all of them), but none of the above legal frameworks – even the Bella Abzug-era gay-only proposals – are analogous to what Maryland law will be if the monstrosity of HB 235 becomes law.

If one of the Bella Abzug-era gay-only Civil Rights Act Amendment proposals had become law, federal law would give everything to gays and nothing to trans people (you know, kinda sorta the way that Maryland state law ended up under the 2001 law that was championed by people like Cathy Brennan, who – as those of us who refuse to be bullied into removing history from our brains – branded as “anti-gay” supporters of gay rights who took the principled position of opposing the gay-only bill because it left trans people in the cold?)

If one of the ENDA Mark I bills had become law, federal law would give everything regarding employment to gays and nothing to gays regarding anything else – and, of course, nothing at all to trans people.

If the 2007 ENDA Mark II bill had become law, federal law would give everything regarding employment to gays and trans people and nothing to gays or trans people regarding anything else.

If the 2007 ENDA Mark III bill had become law, federal law would give everything regarding employment to gays and nothing to gays regarding anything else – and, of course, nothing at all to trans people.

If the 2009 ENDA Mark II-redux bill had become law, federal law would give everything regarding employment to gays and trans people and nothing to gays or trans people regarding anything else.

Make no mistake.  Do not read any of this as even the slightest bit of implicit approval for any of the transphobic ENDA bills (pre- or post-1994), but I ask this question: Do any of these scenarios, even the transphobic ones, align with the situation – the situation that will be Maryland law under HB 235 – of gays and trans people appearing at first glance to be equal but actually with trans people being singled out on one front whose breadth of omission no Maryland court would  ever be able to refrain from including the history of ‘not my shower’ in interpreting (irrespective of whether any of the ‘not my shower’ crap is ever actually cited in any court opinion)?

Remember: When someone tells you to ignore history, that person has an agenda – and your best interests are not part of it.