Day 3 of Netroots Nations - working on lgbtq issues and a sad confession

Well I just had an excellent lgbtq caucus session in which many bloggers and members of mainstream lgbt groups conversed on what worked and what didn't work on recent issues where the community gained success and failure.

In my section, we mostly talked about DADT and ENDA. With DADT, we all agreed that while it looked like everything gelled together, it was really a hodge podge of luck and crap shots held together by the diligence of those working on the outside (Get Equal and those members of the Armed Forces who chained themselves to the White House fence) and those working on the inside to force the vote.

A good point was made as to how we were able to control the issue so much that the horror stories from the right (i.e. soldiers being sexually assaulted in the showers, ogled by gay soldiers) had no resonance.

ENDA was a stickier issue in that we had to address the problems with transphobia within the lgbtq community. There were several excellent points made about this. I made the point that transphobia is indicative of a larger problem in our community in that that we don't take the time to educate ourselves on the different groups and ethnicities which make up the lgbtq community.

And at this point, I really need to admit something.

When I was in college, I had transphobia. I had the mistaken belief that transgender issues had nothing to do with gay issues and I voiced that opinion to a few people.

My mind changed because of a play by Charles Fuller called A Solider's Play. In it, there was a character who mistakenly believed that the African-American community is held back, not by white oppression, but by black folks who seem to be less intelligent. He thought that if he could just get rid of those folks, white people would respect his race more. His mistaken obsession caused a lot of pain and several deaths, including his own, but not before he learned the hard lesson that hate and oppression don't need a reason to exist.

It made me realize the same thing about homophobia. Of course my change of mind was also  helped by the fact that I befriended several transgender brothers and sisters who, by their basic decency and kindness, wrecked every stereotype I had, particularly the Jerry Springer mess of transgenders "tricking men" into having sex with them.

So now I adopt a Fannie Lou Hamer - civil rights activist - frame of mind when it comes to how the transgender community fits into the struggle for equality:

"We didn't come all this way for two seats when all of us are tired."

Or to put it another way - "if all of us aren't free, then none of us are free."

NOM distorts article to make NY Senator seem bigoted

With the National Organization for Marriage, it's always with an annoying subtlety in which the group distorts the marriage equality issue. Also with the way it tries to paint lgbts and allies as "haters" while those on their side as the ones who are simply "full of love."

An excellent example of this is the following clip NOM took from a New York Times article. The article talks about how the opponents of marriage equality are getting frustrated with legislators not listening to them. The following is on NOM's blog:

Both sides of this debate are actively lobbying New York lawmakers, though not all of them are being cordially received, as this New York Times reporter makes clear:

Some lawmakers have been quite explicit about their frustration with some opponents of same-sex marriage. Senator Diane J. Savino, Democrat of Staten Island, taped a handwritten sign outside her legislative office this week that said, “Bigots and homophobes please put your literature here,” with an arrow pointing to a box lid on the ground.

It makes is seem as if Senator Savino is unfairly labeling marriage equality opponents as "bigots" and "homophobes."  However, this is not the case. NOM conveniently omitted the following passage of the New York Time article:

On her Facebook wall Ms. Savino wrote, “If you could see and hear some of the rhetoric you would appreciate my sign.” 

In other words, Savino posted the sign as a response to some of the rhetoric she has had to deal with from marriage equality opponents. Don't be fooled. NOM did not leave out this crucial part of the article by accident.

2011 Netroots Nation LGBT Netroots Connect - Immigration Reform

From CarlosDC:

The 2011 Netroots Nation LGBT Netroots Connect pre-convention was a success and the biggest ever. I have attended two previous meetings before but I think this year was the most meaningful and participative I have seeing so far. There were many new faces, awesome ideas, dialogues and testimonies.

This video is a bit long but worth watching

Live Chat on New York Marriage Battle with Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell

Bloomberg hopeful about marriage bill and other Thursday midday news briefs

All of the introductions at yesterday's 2011 Netroots Nation LGBT Netroots Connect. I come in at 16:50 and the back of my neck needs a diet.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg's Discusses Meeting with GOP Senators About Marriage Equality Bill: VIDEO, REMARKS - My guess is that they will vote on this bill. It will be interesting.

Survey: 3 out of 3 anti-equality groups want you to think equal marriage is unpopular - A group which compares homosexuality to bestiality comes out with a poll about marriage equality. One guess what THAT poll says.

Saunders: I'm Not Homophobic, I'm Homoskeptic - No. you are hetero-idiotic

And if I can get it together right, join me here as I crosspost with Americablog who hosting a live chat at 6 PM ET/5 PM CT with NY Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell. He sponsored the marriage bill in the Assembly, which passed last night.

Day 2 of Netroots Nation - Lovely chaos

When I stepped out of my hotel room. I had my outfit together and Bon Jovi's Wanted: Dead or Alive  blasting on my ipod as I walked confidently with my computer strapped to my side.

Ten minutes later, my forehead was covered with sweat as I stood wearily in the middle of a crowd while awaiting my registration.

I was in the midst of mad fun. Yesterday's lgbt conference was merely cocktail canape compared to today on until Sunday as Netroots Nation officially started. I mingled with all sorts of folks from the NEA, AFL-CIO, The It Gets Better Project, and the assorted progressive organizations and bloggers.

Best of all was the fact that I finally met Joe Sudbay of Americablog, a very early supporter of my blog.

And of course there were the awkward moments.

During a session on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Dream Act, I ran into MSNBC report Dave Weigel. Well not exactly ran into, but rather stared intently at while he sat six seats away from me (yes I counted) typing away.

But I did enjoy the panel discussion on DADT/the Dream Act. A lot of it was about how proponents of the two piece of legislation banded together against a not very receptive president and Congress.

As we all know, DADT was repealed and the Dream Act failed (for now). History will give the Obama Administration credit for the repeal of DADT but very few know the hard work it took to get the president and the Democrats to even push this through a lame duck Congress.

If history was truly correct, the activists behind the scenes with their protests, tears, and hopes would get as much credit  in getting good legislation passed as the lawmakers voting on the issue.

That being said, the cynic in me would hope that folks be careful in terms of how they rip Obama. I love Obama as president, but sometimes I think that some on our side are afraid to sometimes think of him as a means to an end. As president, unfortunately, that is exactly what he is.

I would sincerely hope that folks did not think that things would automatically get better when Obama was elected or that he would do the right thing. Neither idea is realistic.

Getting someone in office who will look kindly on our issues is only a smidgen of the work. When that person is in office, it's up to us to light a fire under his ass to get him to do what he is supposed to do.

The key is keeping that fire from burning him or us.

Why the religious right fear same-sex families

To hear the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the religious right tell it, lgbts are selfish people who want to destroy the "time-honored" institution of family for their own purposes.

It's a vindictive, hateful, but at times, effective meme which dehumanizes the lgbt community, and especially our families. As Equality Matters points out, this meme is a lie in the face of a stark reality that more lgbts are adopting children

Adoptions by gay and lesbian couples are on the rise across the U.S., despite significant legal obstacles that leave many of these couples and their families unprotected. A June 13 New York Times article reports that, according to new census data, a growing number of same-sex couples are starting families even if they can’t legally marry:

Same-sex couples are explicitly prohibited from adopting in only two states -- Utah and Mississippi -- but they face significant legal hurdles in about half of all other states, particularly because they cannot legally marry in those states.

Despite this legal patchwork, the percentage of same-sex parents with adopted children has risen sharply. About 19 percent of same-sex couples raising children reported having an adopted child in the house in 2009, up from just 8 percent in 2000, according to Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“The trend line is absolutely straight up,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit organization working to change adoption policy and practice. “It’s now a reality on the ground.” [emphasis added]

Equality Matters then compares these facts to the statements made by several religious right figures:

Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage:

Marriage is our most basic social institution for protecting children. Same-sex marriage amounts to a vast social experiment on children. Rewriting the basic rules of marriage puts all children, not just the children in unisex unions, at risk. [Townhall.com, 1/8/04, emphasis added]

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council:

[I]t is the powerful dynamic of a mother, father, and children that creates those bonds of family that form the bedrock of all societies and provide the best environment for raising children—as social science has clearly demonstrated. Children need both a mom and a dad, not just two adults. These are compelling, scientific reasons to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They expose the arguments of same-sex advocates as self-serving talking points with no basis in human nature and American history. [U.S. News & World Report, 3/14/11, emphasis added]

An Alliance Defense Fund brief on the “specific harms” of same-sex marriage:

Who is not necessary to raise a child: the father or the mother? The significant social programs that President Obama decries in the inner city come from children lacking fathers. They are living out the full consequences of the norm that “personal sexual fulfillment is the ultimate goal for each individual.” [ADF Brief, accessed 6/14/11]

 My guess is that you probably won't hear a word about this New York Times article from members of the religious right. And this would be odd. Usually when something pro-gay comes out in the press, one can always count on FRC or NOM to make a statement attempting to delegitimize said article.

But not this time.

While the religious right smears the lgbt community with impunity but they fear actually talking about lgbt families because they know that any mention of these entities destroys all of their myths of the selfish, hedonistic homosexual.

And exposes them for the mean-spirited homophobes they are.