The Peter Opposes the First Amendment

October 24, 2007

Well, he didn’t phrase it exactly that way.

Here’s what he did say – about Barney’s ENDA:

ENDA and H.R. 3685 would create federally-protected “rights” based on immoral, unhealthy and changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior — masquerading as “orientation” –setting a dangerous legal, moral and spiritual precedent.

Federally-protected rights based on “changeable” behavior is, obviously then, bad, evil and mean.  Wow – he must really hate this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

T’ain’t nuthin’ immutable anywheres in there, Bubba.

The Eye of The Peter is Upon Us

October 23, 2007

From Americans for (ha! ha! no, I can’t even type it):

Americans For Truth’s revelation that a White House official had boasted to pro-family leaders that the White House had helped craft ENDA’s religious exemption language raised concerns among pro-family groups counting on an Administration veto of ENDA. It also touched off a flurry of blog posts on the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) side, where there is a ferocious battle taking place over ENDA. Barney Frank’s decision to back a version of ENDA that does not include “transgenders” has infuriated the pro-transsexual groups. Meanwhile, Human Rights Campaign, the country’s leading homosexual lobby group, is playing both sides of the fence — backing Frank’s compromise while publicly supporting Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s pro-transsexual amendment to H.R. 3685 to shore up its pro-”T” (transgender) credentials.

Aravosis is Relying on Peter LaBarbera – Really

October 22, 2007

Aravosis is relying on The Peter.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

This is The Peter after all – someone who, according to Aravosis, “is so personally goofy that few listen to him.”

That few, however, includes Aravosis. Relying on The Peter, Aravosis asserts:

“White House staffers were involved in negotiating ENDA’s language. That’s huge, if true. It means that the White House either isn’t sure whether it will veto ENDA (or they think they may support it), and therefore they want the bill as ‘good’ as possible for their side. Or it means that the White House isn’t sure that they can stop ENDA – e.g., they fear that it may be added to some must-pass legislation that they’ll be reluctant to veto, like an appropriations bill.”

Reluctant to veto? The current ruling junta? Yeah – right.

“The White House simply doesn’t negotiate the language of legislation that it doesn’t think is going to pass or that it plans on killing.”

Aravosis sez its so – so, lets go home.

Oh, wait…if Barney’s ENDA becomes law, the likelihood of us not having homes to go to will increase exponentially. So, scratch that last bit.

“The White House saying that they’re going to wait and see what the final language of ENDA is before they decide on a veto – and telling this privately to religious right leaders – is also huge. This implies that there is some language, some version, of ENDA that might prove acceptable to the White House.”

Or…and this might take some oxygen, but maybe they’re just playing The Peter like they, ultimately, have done to all of the christianist hacks.

“The United ENDA coalition, which is advocating that we not pass ENDA until America, and Congress, are ready to vote for transgender (e.g., transsexuals, cross dressers, butch women, fey men) civil rights, has been claiming that ENDA without the transgender provisions is toothless. Well, it’s interesting that the religious right doesn’t seem to think so. They think that ENDA opens the floodgates for our civil rights:

‘ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It’s the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don’t,’ he said…. ‘Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists…. He said it is a dangerous precedent to install in federal law ‘rights’ based on changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior…. ‘It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their ‘moral’ claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their ‘sexual orientation’) trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality,’ LaBarbera said.

The religious right understands the cultural, legal, and political implications of passing ANY federal gay civil rights law, regardless of how “toothless” it is, or is claimed to be.”

Of course, none of this changes the real equation: There will be no incremental progress. Aravosis and his greed-addled, straight-acting transphobes will get all of the benefit from ENDA; trans people will receive no protection; there will be no effort whatsoever on the part of Barney Frank to ever ‘go back and add’ gender identity to federal statutory law; and greed-addled, straight-acting transphobes will have federally-sanctioned impunity to refuse to even consider the proposition that trans people can ever be the best qualified person for any job.

Aravosis is saying that the inclusive ENDA crowd has crow to eat?

“I wrote repeatedly about my inkling that ENDA could very well become law this year, in spite of the naysayers who said that Bush would definitely veto, that there was no way around his veto, and that I was either naive or a liar (in addition to being a racist, misogynist, native-American hater, bigot, rich, white, transphobe, homocentrist). Well, the religious right doesn’t appear as unequivocal about that veto, and neither does the White House.”

He’s relying on The Peter! (As far as any of those adjectives goes? Just remember – people like The Peter claim that they don’t hate you. Do you believe it? Oh – I forgot. You’re willing to believe The Peter when you think it proves your point, such as – for some bizarre reason – in this instance.)

What among any of what praise he has to heap on The Peter actually disproves anything that the inclusionists have been saying?

“If United ENDA has its way, the religious right can stop worrying. Later this week, 25 million gays and lesbians may be derailed from getting their civil rights recognized by a house of Congress for the first time in US history. But the big question is who will be cheering louder if ENDA doesn’t pass? Peter LaBarbera or United ENDA?”

What a worthless, arrogant prick.

“As an aside, I’ve just learned that there’s at least one senior transgender leader in America who is married (and I’m sure other straight transgendered people are married). That’s nice, and I support their right to marry. But I do find it odd that the gay community is being asked (well, told) to put our employment rights on hold until the transgender community can get theirs, but the transgender community isn’t putting its marriage rights on hold until we get ours. Then again, I’d never ask them to put their rights on hold until I got mine.”

Let me add something to ‘worthless, arrogant prick.’ Aravosis also – assuming that he actually believes the analogy he spewed out here is valid – is bordering on mental incompetence (or, at the very least, incompetence in the field of analogizing.)

Lets try an appropriate – and accurate – one, shall we?

I don’t see any gay man or lesbian in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin or Hawaii declining to file ‘sexual orientation’-based anti-discrimination suits until such time as ‘gender identity’ is added to those states’ anti-discrimination laws.

And I’m pretty sure I never will.

Was it good for you, too?

You want to marry yourself to the marriage issue, John? Try this:

I don’t see any trans person in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin or Hawaii bringing any court action that will result in the loss of existing ‘sexual orientation’-based anti-discrimination rights in those states.

I do, however, see (just as I have seen in the past) plenty of gay men and lesbians filing – and losing – suit after suit after suit in state after state after state, consistently resulting in backlashes against same-sex marriage which almost always result in anti-same-sex marriage legislation, which, in turn, have been used

You married that, John.

You wanna play the whiny-ass ‘I can’t get married’ card?

You married us.

You owe us.

Until you’re willing to step up to the plate and personally compensate Christie Lee Littleton for what she lost to state and federal DOMAs; until you’re willing to compensate J’Noel Gardiner and Michael Kantaras for what they lost to state DOMAs; until you’re willing to compensate all transsexuals who have had their transitions derailed, or even interrupted in the slightest, because of anti-trans law that only came into existence because of the backlash to same-sex marriage…STFU about US holding anyone hostage!

You’ve been holding us hostage and, while we are bound and gagged, you’ve stolen our most precious of personal possessions: our legal identities (in Texas, Kansas, Ohio and Florida – with more to come.)

What a less-than-worthless, arrogant prick.

Yeh – that’s name calling.

Think it’s shitty?

Try being called a name that’s the gender-opposite of what you are living as – and try being called a gender designation that’s the gender-opposite of what you are living as.

And try being told that that’s what you are – legally – all because a bunch of arrogant, rich, white, homocentric, trans-don’t-give-a-shit gays and lesbians provoked the legislature of the state in which you were born to enact anti-same-sex-marriage legislation – and that legislation was used against transsexuals, even though not one transsexual had any say in whether same-sex marriage was worth trying in that state at that time.

That’s shitty.

That’s the shit that you shat upon us.