I don't care what Elton John said about Proposition 8
But first, an interlude:
I see that the phony news service One News Now are hiring black columnists. First Thomas Sowell and now Larry Elder.
For the record, Elder and Sowell are two black conservatives whose opinions are bought and paid for with Republican money.
They are a part of a cadre of black conservative writers and thinkers who, as Joe Conason paraphrases, settles in a clique amongst themselves and whines as to why black people in general don't give a damn about their opinions.
One would think that they were hired to exploit the alleged Proposition 8 divide between the lgbt and black communities. However I doubt this.
We now have a black president and even before he was elected, One News Now was doing its best to paint him as the younger brother of the Anti-Christ, if not the Anti-Christ himself.
So now they are apparently hiring "black conservatives" who will do their dirty work on Obama, or at least give One News Now some form of cover when they do another anti-Obama hit piece.
Larry Elder's inital column is a perfect example of what I am talking about - They shilled for Obama
Now for the main course:
Singer Elton John has weighed in on the Proposition 8 controversy and he wasn't exactly nice to the Proposition 8 opposers:
"What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."
Now some folks are upset over this. Those who support Proposition 8 are using his comments to further their cause.
But you know what? Regardless of what John would have said, even if his words were a forceful indictment of Proposition 8, I wouldn't have given a damn.
Does Elton John even live in California? Does he live in America?
Please understand that I am not trying to put down Elton John for voicing his opinion. But I just get sick and tired when our community flips out over the lastest verbal pronouncement of an lgbt celebrity.
I have seen it too many times before: a celebrity whom none of us really gave a care for comes out and all of the sudden, he or she is anointed as our new spokesperson and we hang on their every word as if he or she is Moses coming down from Mount Sinai.
You think we would have learned that lesson with Lance Bass.
Just because someone has a successful talk show, is a successful actor, or a successful entertainer is no reason to make them the new gay spokesperson.
The glare of visibility does not magically make someone golden nor does it make the words flowing from their mouths sound like tinkling brass.
I hate to say it but this automatic canonization of lgbt celebrities reveals a certain degree of laziness. We should not want our spokespeople to be like instant food where you just have to add water.
We need to build our spokespeople from our own personal communities. We need to mentor and educate those who can and will lead us into the future.
And not just the pretty boys or those who fit a successful social strata. Some of us unconvential divas with bad credit and low income can also shake the world up if we are given the tools and the chance.
So let's start building leaders from the bottom up rather waiting for them to come from the top down. (and that's my Obama reference for today).
And above all, let's stop getting ourselves in a knot over what Elton said or what Melissa said or what Ellen said.
I mean it!
I ain't playing, y'all! (and that's my Boondocks reference for today).
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Proposition 8 fall out - Stop whining and stand behind your donations
There is a lot of fallout over the Proposition 8 vote. Those who did donate to pass that awful referendum are now facing the consequences of their actions. This is one that you no doubt already heard about:
California Musical Theatre's artistic director, Scott Eckern, resigned from his post today amid controversy over a donation he made to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.
Eckern gave $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a donation that sparked criticism from theater workers and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
"We have released a statement that Scott resigned," said Chris McSwain, community affairs director for the theater company. He declined to comment further. . .
Eckern also released a statement today saying that he quit "after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community."
To put it nicely, Eckern pissed off a lot of people, including Jeff Whitty (Avenue Q) and Marc Shaiman (Hairspray).
No doubt we will be inudated by the religious right who will wax about evil intolerant gay folks but please spare us your usual twists in logic.
You are the same folks who boycotted McDonalds and Ford Auto because of their supposed support of the "gay agenda."
I can only hope that in this juncture, the religious right won't be their usual hypocritical selves.
Eckern obviously thought that he could have it both ways; he can donate to a referendum that denies lgbts basic human rights but can also make money from the efforts of lgbts.
It's a classic case of what we learn as children about making choices. It was Eckern's right to make his donation but with his donations, like all things, there are consequences.
And in a general sense, I have no pity for anyone who suffers repercussions (albeit rational and logical repercussions) over their donations to Proposition 8.
If you as a business owner donated to Proposition 8, then you don't have the right to force angry lgbts to continue to cater to your business.
And you don't have a right to tell them that they cannot launch a boycott.
You only have the right to man up and stand by your donation.
If you can't then maybe you shouldn't have made said donation in the first place.
There is a lot of fallout over the Proposition 8 vote. Those who did donate to pass that awful referendum are now facing the consequences of their actions. This is one that you no doubt already heard about:
California Musical Theatre's artistic director, Scott Eckern, resigned from his post today amid controversy over a donation he made to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.
Eckern gave $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a donation that sparked criticism from theater workers and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
"We have released a statement that Scott resigned," said Chris McSwain, community affairs director for the theater company. He declined to comment further. . .
Eckern also released a statement today saying that he quit "after prayerful consideration to protect the organization and to help the healing in the local theatre-going and creative community."
To put it nicely, Eckern pissed off a lot of people, including Jeff Whitty (Avenue Q) and Marc Shaiman (Hairspray).
No doubt we will be inudated by the religious right who will wax about evil intolerant gay folks but please spare us your usual twists in logic.
You are the same folks who boycotted McDonalds and Ford Auto because of their supposed support of the "gay agenda."
I can only hope that in this juncture, the religious right won't be their usual hypocritical selves.
Eckern obviously thought that he could have it both ways; he can donate to a referendum that denies lgbts basic human rights but can also make money from the efforts of lgbts.
It's a classic case of what we learn as children about making choices. It was Eckern's right to make his donation but with his donations, like all things, there are consequences.
And in a general sense, I have no pity for anyone who suffers repercussions (albeit rational and logical repercussions) over their donations to Proposition 8.
If you as a business owner donated to Proposition 8, then you don't have the right to force angry lgbts to continue to cater to your business.
And you don't have a right to tell them that they cannot launch a boycott.
You only have the right to man up and stand by your donation.
If you can't then maybe you shouldn't have made said donation in the first place.
Thank you Nate Silver for saying what needs to be said
Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin.
More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage.
Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
More here
Arkansas anti-gay adoption referendum may reap more problems than we realize
But while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah — the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 — an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.
That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.
Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn’t be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered “pro-family.”
Most ominous, once “pro-family” groups start arguing that gay couples are unfit to raise children we might adopt, how long before they argue that we’re unfit to raise those we’ve already adopted? If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster children, are they fit to care for their own biological children?
More here
Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin.
More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage.
Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
More here
Arkansas anti-gay adoption referendum may reap more problems than we realize
But while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah — the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 — an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.
That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.
Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister’s children.
Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn’t be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered “pro-family.”
Most ominous, once “pro-family” groups start arguing that gay couples are unfit to raise children we might adopt, how long before they argue that we’re unfit to raise those we’ve already adopted? If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster children, are they fit to care for their own biological children?
More here
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
And it begins - One News Now and Peter LaBarbera attacks the transgender community
I said it yesterday in my blog post and today I see it is happening.
Let me recap.
The religious right are scared over an Obama presidency and the positive possibilities it may have for the lgbt community.
So expect them to batten down all of the hatches and pull out all of their lies about hate crimes legislation, gays serving openly in the military, ENDA, and non-discrimination ordinances in general.
With non-discrimination ordinances, they are going to try and exploit ignorance and fear about our transgender brothers and sisters.
I see from an item on LaBarbera's Americans for Truth (in name only) web page and the One News Now webpage, they aren't wasting any time:
Americans for Truth - Will big-boned men in dresses and high heels like this fellow be allowed to use women’s restrooms in federal buildings under the Obama Administration? That’s what Obama’s plan to create “rights” based on gender confusion might bring. Obama’s pro-transsexual agenda — he favors federal rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — was never discussed or debated seriously in the election campaign.
One News Now - Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says Obama's new non-discrimination policy will be an "open door" for gender-confused and cross-dressing federal employees. "What's the Obama administration going to do to protect women in federal restrooms?" the activist asks. "Since men [wearing] dresses apparently are going to be protected under gender-identity provisions, what about the women in the restrooms in the White House and other federal buildings? What's going to be done to protect their rights?"
Apparently Obama's election has afforded Peter the privilege of getting around more than a whore on payday.
So expect us to hear more about the transgender community in lucid and ugly terms.
Oh brother.
Listen, the question here is not whether anyone approves with being transgender or not. So be careful not to let Peter and company turn it into that.
The question is should lgbts (and that includes transgendered brothers and sisters) be able to function and do their job without fear of discrimination.
And if Peter and company want to bring up the issue of bathrooms and such, let's make them be specific about it.
Starting now.
I know my blog preaches to the choir but just in case there are any opposition folks out there who read it, I dare you to challenge me on this point:
The bathroom issue is IRRELEVANT. The bathroom issue is a scare tactic brought up by the religious right. There has never a problem of women having to fear for themselves if someone transgendered used the bathroom.
And also, as I said yesterday, several cities (including my home city of Columbia, SC) has passed ordinances such as these. And there has NOT been any problems with bathrooms and the like.
Other than trying to exploit fear and ignorance, what concerns are reasonable about the bathroom argument?
I await your answer, even though I won't ever get it.
Peter is scared that he is being watched
Speaking of my friend LaBarbera, he has another interesting item on his webpage. Apparently a gay man wrote wannabe "Christian activist" and all-around nutcase Linda Harvey and said the following:
Comments: You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats. Beware. We are everywhere and you will never know it. Watch your mouth. Watch your actions. We are watching them my friend and we are many and we are rich and we are very well educated and very powerful.
Peter makes the comment sound ominous.
Oh please. Peter, I am watching you. I am watching Harvey. I am watching One News Now and the rest of the religious right.
Just like you watch us. Cause if you didn't, you wouldn't have any items to lie on us about.
Hell, Peter, you have made a career out of watching us and taking pictures no less.
For you to complain that a gay man has written saying that he is watching you or anyone else on your side is yet another sign of your hypocrisy.
I said it yesterday in my blog post and today I see it is happening.
Let me recap.
The religious right are scared over an Obama presidency and the positive possibilities it may have for the lgbt community.
So expect them to batten down all of the hatches and pull out all of their lies about hate crimes legislation, gays serving openly in the military, ENDA, and non-discrimination ordinances in general.
With non-discrimination ordinances, they are going to try and exploit ignorance and fear about our transgender brothers and sisters.
I see from an item on LaBarbera's Americans for Truth (in name only) web page and the One News Now webpage, they aren't wasting any time:
Americans for Truth - Will big-boned men in dresses and high heels like this fellow be allowed to use women’s restrooms in federal buildings under the Obama Administration? That’s what Obama’s plan to create “rights” based on gender confusion might bring. Obama’s pro-transsexual agenda — he favors federal rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — was never discussed or debated seriously in the election campaign.
One News Now - Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says Obama's new non-discrimination policy will be an "open door" for gender-confused and cross-dressing federal employees. "What's the Obama administration going to do to protect women in federal restrooms?" the activist asks. "Since men [wearing] dresses apparently are going to be protected under gender-identity provisions, what about the women in the restrooms in the White House and other federal buildings? What's going to be done to protect their rights?"
Apparently Obama's election has afforded Peter the privilege of getting around more than a whore on payday.
So expect us to hear more about the transgender community in lucid and ugly terms.
Oh brother.
Listen, the question here is not whether anyone approves with being transgender or not. So be careful not to let Peter and company turn it into that.
The question is should lgbts (and that includes transgendered brothers and sisters) be able to function and do their job without fear of discrimination.
And if Peter and company want to bring up the issue of bathrooms and such, let's make them be specific about it.
Starting now.
I know my blog preaches to the choir but just in case there are any opposition folks out there who read it, I dare you to challenge me on this point:
The bathroom issue is IRRELEVANT. The bathroom issue is a scare tactic brought up by the religious right. There has never a problem of women having to fear for themselves if someone transgendered used the bathroom.
And also, as I said yesterday, several cities (including my home city of Columbia, SC) has passed ordinances such as these. And there has NOT been any problems with bathrooms and the like.
Other than trying to exploit fear and ignorance, what concerns are reasonable about the bathroom argument?
I await your answer, even though I won't ever get it.
Peter is scared that he is being watched
Speaking of my friend LaBarbera, he has another interesting item on his webpage. Apparently a gay man wrote wannabe "Christian activist" and all-around nutcase Linda Harvey and said the following:
Comments: You are very much being watched! All you jeebus-lovin-christers rights will slowly be taken away one by one the more you try to press your beliefs down our throats. Beware. We are everywhere and you will never know it. Watch your mouth. Watch your actions. We are watching them my friend and we are many and we are rich and we are very well educated and very powerful.
Peter makes the comment sound ominous.
Oh please. Peter, I am watching you. I am watching Harvey. I am watching One News Now and the rest of the religious right.
Just like you watch us. Cause if you didn't, you wouldn't have any items to lie on us about.
Hell, Peter, you have made a career out of watching us and taking pictures no less.
For you to complain that a gay man has written saying that he is watching you or anyone else on your side is yet another sign of your hypocrisy.
Monday, November 10, 2008
We are angry. Now what to do with that anger
Despite the past blogs regarding the Proposition 8 controversy, part of me is pleased with the lgbt community's anger.
It reminds of that soul song "A Thin Line Between Love and Hate." In the song, the protagonist's girlfriend endures hurt after humiliation from him until he goes too far.
Then she took it upon herself to take care of the situation.
Historically, the lgbt community are like that. We endure insult after insult until we get really angry. And when we do, people start shaking.
It's not because we get violent (we usually don't) but because we get infused with that fiersome clarity that always comes with white hot righteous indignation. When that happens, your mind develops a sort of tunnelvision that, if used right, is like a cleansing fire that not only overwhelms everything in its wake, but also gives your enemies the realization that maybe this time, they have gone too far.
It's taking us a little time and despite the minor roadblock we have to deal with (i.e. the Proposition 8 blame game), the lgbt community is reaching that point of fiersome clarity.
It happened after the Anita Bryant/Dade County vote, it happened after the 1992 Colorado anti-gay discrimination vote and it's happening now.
But the question is where will it lead. I like the fact that our community is channeling Howard Beale from the motion picture Network (i.e. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"), but we need to take things into account.
These things are the difference between us running our anger out in useless sparks of wildcat rage and using the anger to become a disciplined united force:
1. We now have a president and a Congress who are a little more gay-friendly than the ones we have had to deal with in recent years. That being the case, we have a good chance of passing ENDA, hate crimes legislation, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
2. The religious right is still out there. They still have the power to motivate on the basis of ignorance, albeit on a smaller scale. In other words, they are still dangerous.
How the lgbt community handles the second issue will determine how much success we will have with the first issue.
We need to have a real assessment of what the religious right can and will do - their strengths so so speak.
Allow me to offer up an opinion on the matter.
1. Expect to see and hear more lies regarding the transgender community.
2. Expect to hear more anecdotes about how the "gay agenda" is being marketed to children or how gays want to silence Christians. The religious right definition of an anecdote is a current event taken out of context (i.e. lies about parents getting arrested for "standing up against the gay agenda," people arrested for "simply preaching the gospel' at a gay pride festival," pastors arrested for "simply preaching against homosexuality").
I would suggest to combat this, we pre-develop talking points like the following:
Religious right - Hate crime laws are an excuse for pastors to be arrested in their pulpits for speaking against homosexuality.
Truth - Hate crime laws deal with violent action, not speech. Also there are already hate crime laws regarding religion and race. They aren't causing a problem, so why would a protection on sexual orientation cause a problem?
Religious Right - But a pastor in Sweden was arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.
Truth - Well that was Sweden. America has different laws regarding speech. Also, the pastor in question (i.e. Ake Green) was acquitted of the charges.
Religious Right - ENDA will force churches to hire drag queens to teach nurseries, as well as "she-males" and 300 pound linebackers with five o'clock shadow and make up.
Truth - Churches are exempt from ENDA. Also, don't you think your examples are a little extreme? What the heck is a "she-male?"
Religious Right - Non-discrimination ordinances will allow men to come into ladies rooms and locker rooms. All they have to say is "I feel like a woman."
Truth - That is a huge stretch. This sort of activity is not covered by non-discrimination ordinances. Also, several cities, including Columbia, SC , have passed these ordinances and there have been NO problems.
One more thing.
I think the possible exploitation of disagreements between the black and lgbt community may be a blessing in disguise. If anything, it challenges us to define the battle on our terms and not that of history. Forget historical relevance. Let the historians worry about that.
Our concern is not how our movement compare with the marches on Selma or Birmingham or the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the March on Washington.
I say we break out the facts and figures. Just how many children are in foster care and will not have a family because of a ban on gay adoption? How many sorely needed linguists have been dismissed due to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" How many lgbts fear reprisal at their job for simply putting up a picture of their loved ones?
Our concern is making sure Bobby or Sue can go to school without fear of being beaten up for their orientation.
Our concern is that Bobby or Sue are not prohibited from being all they can be at their jobs or prohibited from starting a family due, not to facts, but someone's "deeply held ignorance" regarding sexual orientation.
Our concern is that Bobby or Sue are not brainwashed by a self-actualizing dichotomy that tells them that they have no other recourse as lgbts other than to act hedonistic because they are not worthy of the words "values," "morality," or "family."
In other words, this battle is not about why lgbts should have our rights, but why should anyone dare to keep them from us.
Let's use all of our anger to make that the focus of the so-called cultural war.
Despite the past blogs regarding the Proposition 8 controversy, part of me is pleased with the lgbt community's anger.
It reminds of that soul song "A Thin Line Between Love and Hate." In the song, the protagonist's girlfriend endures hurt after humiliation from him until he goes too far.
Then she took it upon herself to take care of the situation.
Historically, the lgbt community are like that. We endure insult after insult until we get really angry. And when we do, people start shaking.
It's not because we get violent (we usually don't) but because we get infused with that fiersome clarity that always comes with white hot righteous indignation. When that happens, your mind develops a sort of tunnelvision that, if used right, is like a cleansing fire that not only overwhelms everything in its wake, but also gives your enemies the realization that maybe this time, they have gone too far.
It's taking us a little time and despite the minor roadblock we have to deal with (i.e. the Proposition 8 blame game), the lgbt community is reaching that point of fiersome clarity.
It happened after the Anita Bryant/Dade County vote, it happened after the 1992 Colorado anti-gay discrimination vote and it's happening now.
But the question is where will it lead. I like the fact that our community is channeling Howard Beale from the motion picture Network (i.e. "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"), but we need to take things into account.
These things are the difference between us running our anger out in useless sparks of wildcat rage and using the anger to become a disciplined united force:
1. We now have a president and a Congress who are a little more gay-friendly than the ones we have had to deal with in recent years. That being the case, we have a good chance of passing ENDA, hate crimes legislation, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
2. The religious right is still out there. They still have the power to motivate on the basis of ignorance, albeit on a smaller scale. In other words, they are still dangerous.
How the lgbt community handles the second issue will determine how much success we will have with the first issue.
We need to have a real assessment of what the religious right can and will do - their strengths so so speak.
Allow me to offer up an opinion on the matter.
1. Expect to see and hear more lies regarding the transgender community.
2. Expect to hear more anecdotes about how the "gay agenda" is being marketed to children or how gays want to silence Christians. The religious right definition of an anecdote is a current event taken out of context (i.e. lies about parents getting arrested for "standing up against the gay agenda," people arrested for "simply preaching the gospel' at a gay pride festival," pastors arrested for "simply preaching against homosexuality").
I would suggest to combat this, we pre-develop talking points like the following:
Religious right - Hate crime laws are an excuse for pastors to be arrested in their pulpits for speaking against homosexuality.
Truth - Hate crime laws deal with violent action, not speech. Also there are already hate crime laws regarding religion and race. They aren't causing a problem, so why would a protection on sexual orientation cause a problem?
Religious Right - But a pastor in Sweden was arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.
Truth - Well that was Sweden. America has different laws regarding speech. Also, the pastor in question (i.e. Ake Green) was acquitted of the charges.
Religious Right - ENDA will force churches to hire drag queens to teach nurseries, as well as "she-males" and 300 pound linebackers with five o'clock shadow and make up.
Truth - Churches are exempt from ENDA. Also, don't you think your examples are a little extreme? What the heck is a "she-male?"
Religious Right - Non-discrimination ordinances will allow men to come into ladies rooms and locker rooms. All they have to say is "I feel like a woman."
Truth - That is a huge stretch. This sort of activity is not covered by non-discrimination ordinances. Also, several cities, including Columbia, SC , have passed these ordinances and there have been NO problems.
One more thing.
I think the possible exploitation of disagreements between the black and lgbt community may be a blessing in disguise. If anything, it challenges us to define the battle on our terms and not that of history. Forget historical relevance. Let the historians worry about that.
Our concern is not how our movement compare with the marches on Selma or Birmingham or the Montgomery Bus Boycott or the March on Washington.
I say we break out the facts and figures. Just how many children are in foster care and will not have a family because of a ban on gay adoption? How many sorely needed linguists have been dismissed due to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" How many lgbts fear reprisal at their job for simply putting up a picture of their loved ones?
Our concern is making sure Bobby or Sue can go to school without fear of being beaten up for their orientation.
Our concern is that Bobby or Sue are not prohibited from being all they can be at their jobs or prohibited from starting a family due, not to facts, but someone's "deeply held ignorance" regarding sexual orientation.
Our concern is that Bobby or Sue are not brainwashed by a self-actualizing dichotomy that tells them that they have no other recourse as lgbts other than to act hedonistic because they are not worthy of the words "values," "morality," or "family."
In other words, this battle is not about why lgbts should have our rights, but why should anyone dare to keep them from us.
Let's use all of our anger to make that the focus of the so-called cultural war.
Friday, November 07, 2008
What a week, what a week
First let's get the trifling mess out of the way. This is important because it illustrates the points I was making yesterday and the day before:
N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest
Not that this wasn't expected. The recent passage of California's Proposition 8 has exposed some of the latent racism of many within the LGBT community—instigated in part by many in the e-telligentsia such as proto-racist Andrew Sullivan and columnist Dan Savage. Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.
Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Pam Spaulding gives her take on the situation:
The backlash is upon us, and it's going to get uglier unless our organizations step forward and say something. The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement.
I have already blogged a lot about why the lack of effective communication (and I'm not even talking about outreach on gay issues to socially conservative blacks) between white people in general and people of color. That dearth of understanding and mutual respect for difference, and lack of desire to seek common ground through personal relationships ultimately leads to what we are seeing here.
The great irony over this entire thing is this item I found on PageOneQ:
San Francisco ranks 53 of 59 counties in voter turnout
San Francisco, considered by many to be the "gay capital" of the United States (perhaps the world), ranked close to the bottom of California counties in terms of turnout for Tuesday's general election, PageOneQ has learned. The balloting included Proposition 8, an effort to repeal marriage equality in the state. The proposition passed, making California the first state to affirm, then revoke, equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Personally I think the behavior of some lgbts, especially some lgbt bloggers, have been extremely irresponsible in pushing this mess up. And it brings a point to my mind.
Everyone wants to win but you have to sometimes learn how to lose. Losing shows your true character and if you can't lose with humility then don't count on winning because you will never win.
In other words, stop acting like a bunch of dumbasses. Wipe away your tears, fix your faces, and get ready to work.
But I am still in a good mood. For one thing, other leaders in the lgbt community have come out speaking against these racist actions.
For another thing, I don't think its over. Everyone seems to forget that in 1992 even with the election of Bill Clinton, Colorado passed an amendment that forbad the state from protecting lgbts from discrimination.
The Supreme Court overturned it two years later.
So we may be on the losing end now but we will win in the end.
And lastly:
WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT, Y'ALL!!!!!!
I can't help being reminded of the movie Blazing Saddles (an excellent anti-p.c. comedy that still holds up) in which a racist white town received a black sheriff.
Naturally they treated him like shit until a monstrous villain (Mongo) invaded the town.
Forgetting all of their ugliness, the townspeople begged the sheriff to take care of the situation, which he did with a lot of aplomb.
What does that tell me? After so many years treating the black man like shit, America is now turning to him to help it through one of the most turbulent times in this country's history.
And I have faith that like that sheriff in Blazing Saddles, Obama is going to come through with flying colors.
First let's get the trifling mess out of the way. This is important because it illustrates the points I was making yesterday and the day before:
N-Word Hurled at Blacks During Westwood Prop 8 Protest
Not that this wasn't expected. The recent passage of California's Proposition 8 has exposed some of the latent racism of many within the LGBT community—instigated in part by many in the e-telligentsia such as proto-racist Andrew Sullivan and columnist Dan Savage. Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.
Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.
It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
Pam Spaulding gives her take on the situation:
The backlash is upon us, and it's going to get uglier unless our organizations step forward and say something. The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement.
I have already blogged a lot about why the lack of effective communication (and I'm not even talking about outreach on gay issues to socially conservative blacks) between white people in general and people of color. That dearth of understanding and mutual respect for difference, and lack of desire to seek common ground through personal relationships ultimately leads to what we are seeing here.
The great irony over this entire thing is this item I found on PageOneQ:
San Francisco ranks 53 of 59 counties in voter turnout
San Francisco, considered by many to be the "gay capital" of the United States (perhaps the world), ranked close to the bottom of California counties in terms of turnout for Tuesday's general election, PageOneQ has learned. The balloting included Proposition 8, an effort to repeal marriage equality in the state. The proposition passed, making California the first state to affirm, then revoke, equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Personally I think the behavior of some lgbts, especially some lgbt bloggers, have been extremely irresponsible in pushing this mess up. And it brings a point to my mind.
Everyone wants to win but you have to sometimes learn how to lose. Losing shows your true character and if you can't lose with humility then don't count on winning because you will never win.
In other words, stop acting like a bunch of dumbasses. Wipe away your tears, fix your faces, and get ready to work.
But I am still in a good mood. For one thing, other leaders in the lgbt community have come out speaking against these racist actions.
For another thing, I don't think its over. Everyone seems to forget that in 1992 even with the election of Bill Clinton, Colorado passed an amendment that forbad the state from protecting lgbts from discrimination.
The Supreme Court overturned it two years later.
So we may be on the losing end now but we will win in the end.
And lastly:
WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT, Y'ALL!!!!!!
I can't help being reminded of the movie Blazing Saddles (an excellent anti-p.c. comedy that still holds up) in which a racist white town received a black sheriff.
Naturally they treated him like shit until a monstrous villain (Mongo) invaded the town.
Forgetting all of their ugliness, the townspeople begged the sheriff to take care of the situation, which he did with a lot of aplomb.
What does that tell me? After so many years treating the black man like shit, America is now turning to him to help it through one of the most turbulent times in this country's history.
And I have faith that like that sheriff in Blazing Saddles, Obama is going to come through with flying colors.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Lift that barge, tote that bale, drive that wedge
Unfortunately as the lgbt community tries to deal with losing in California, ugliness is prevailing.
The scuttlebutt seems to be that the African-American community overwhelmingly supported the anti-gay marriage equality amendment.
Now the blogsphere on the left is filled with comments by some angry lgbts over this.
Part of me can say that I understand their anger. But I won't.
I simply will not give an ounce of sympathy. And here is why:
I live in South Carolina. When the marriage amendment hit us, nobody gave a damn because everyone figured that South Carolina was so homophobic, it wasn' t worth worrying about.
I guess what happened in California proves that not only your silence but your location will NOT protect you.
When we lost, we got demoralized but we got back up again and got united. We assessed why we lost and are better because of it.
All I can say in this matter is don't let your anger make you say things that are counterproductive and stupid - like the threats I read on the Queerty site. Very nice guys - you really did something special. Now Peter Labarbera and Matt Barber can plead victimhood for days.
I am of the opinion of Pam Spaulding. She wrote an excellent piece on how the defeats should make lgbts deal with the issue of race in their community:
For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn't been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven't reached them; there hasn't been enough effort expended.
I've been blogging for years about the need to discuss race in regards to LGBT issues. I hope that this is now the wakeup call for our "professional gays" out there who represent us to come out of their comfort zones and help bridge this concrete education gap. The belief that white=gay is big part of the problem, and as long as black LGBTs are invisible in their own communities and there is a dearth of color in the public face of LGBT leadership, the socially conservative black community can remain in denial that I exist as a black lesbian.
This is a teachable moment people, so hush up and learn. The religious right is going to use your anger to drive a wedge where there should be a bridge.
Unfortunately as the lgbt community tries to deal with losing in California, ugliness is prevailing.
The scuttlebutt seems to be that the African-American community overwhelmingly supported the anti-gay marriage equality amendment.
Now the blogsphere on the left is filled with comments by some angry lgbts over this.
Part of me can say that I understand their anger. But I won't.
I simply will not give an ounce of sympathy. And here is why:
I live in South Carolina. When the marriage amendment hit us, nobody gave a damn because everyone figured that South Carolina was so homophobic, it wasn' t worth worrying about.
I guess what happened in California proves that not only your silence but your location will NOT protect you.
When we lost, we got demoralized but we got back up again and got united. We assessed why we lost and are better because of it.
All I can say in this matter is don't let your anger make you say things that are counterproductive and stupid - like the threats I read on the Queerty site. Very nice guys - you really did something special. Now Peter Labarbera and Matt Barber can plead victimhood for days.
I am of the opinion of Pam Spaulding. She wrote an excellent piece on how the defeats should make lgbts deal with the issue of race in their community:
For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn't been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven't reached them; there hasn't been enough effort expended.
I've been blogging for years about the need to discuss race in regards to LGBT issues. I hope that this is now the wakeup call for our "professional gays" out there who represent us to come out of their comfort zones and help bridge this concrete education gap. The belief that white=gay is big part of the problem, and as long as black LGBTs are invisible in their own communities and there is a dearth of color in the public face of LGBT leadership, the socially conservative black community can remain in denial that I exist as a black lesbian.
This is a teachable moment people, so hush up and learn. The religious right is going to use your anger to drive a wedge where there should be a bridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)