A Dahl's House

A poll today shows that Proposition 8 — which would repeal California’s marriage equality — is now leading. Not coincidentally there’s been tens of millions of dollars sent from out-of-state by the pro-bigotry Christianist forces.

Don’t let Prop 8 pass! Donate now to No on Prop 8. If you want to be idealistic, do so because it’s the right thing to do. If for no other reason than self-interest, do so — because you can be sure that if the fundies are successful in turning back marriage equality, it won’t be the last anti-discrimination protections they’ll try to take away.

The National Stonewall Democrats have a page for trans people and allies to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. This is a great opportunity to raise our visibility. So if you’re trans, or a trans ally, and are would like to see the Democrats retake the White House, why not donate to Obama’s campaign through the site today (whether it’s a little or a lot). Then tell your friends and ask them to do the same, as well as spread the word on your blog or message boards that you post to. Let’s see if we can move up a few notches on ActBlue’s list of top online donors.

‘Nuff said…

Take that, old wrinkly white-haired dude…

Never thought I’d say it, but: well done Paris!

Some of the political chattering class have noted that Ulysses S. Grant’s handling of Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appottamox offers a good model — and I agree. For those of you who’ve forgotten your high school history classes: Grant was “magnanimous in victory,” not only letting Lee chose the time and place of his surrender, but also agreeing to terms to designed to avoid “an unnecessary humiliation” — treating the Confederates as prodigal fellow citizens rather than an enemy. Grant’s actions went a long way toward reconciling a country split asunder.

However, I think it’s worth point out that Lee’s willingness to accept defeat was also instrumental in bringing about the end of the Civil War. Some of Lee’s officers wanted to continue a guerrilla war — and in fact, a few did so. But Lee’s insistence that the war was over and it that it was time to move on persuaded the rest of the Confederate army to lay down their arms, and is one reason Lee is revered even by those who detest the cause he fought for.

Obviously, the official surrender didn’t ease the bitterness. Many Southerners clung to the “Lost Cause” for decades. Nor do I expect the bitterness (some of it well justified) felt by many of Clinton’s supporters to go away soon. But aside from doing her party good, if nothing else, Clinton isn’t doing herself any favors by her refusal to concede. Memo to Clinton: if the situation were reversed, would you really be willing to take Obama as your vice president if he weren’t willing to accept that you won? Didn’t think so. Originally, the vice president was whoever came in second in the presidential race. There’s a reason that we no longer do it that way: it led to political opponents John Adams (president) and Thomas Jefferson (vice president) being yoked together, with the predictable result the Adams’ presidency was plagued by political infighting as Jefferson sought to — and eventually succeeded in — unseating Adams in the next election.

Finally, while Clinton may envision herself as Rocky Balboa, there’s another sports analogy that apropos: taking one for the team. The L.A. Lakers made their comeback because Kobe Bryant finally realized it wasn’t all about him. Just sayin’…

It seems like whenever LGBT people try to get anti-discrimination laws passed, the religious bigots invariably trot out the argument that we’re somehow seeking “special rights.” So my hypocrisy alarm went off when I heard that a conservative legal-advocacy group is looking for a church willing to be a test case to challenge IRS tax laws against using the pulpit to endorse political candidates. Now the thing is, churches are perfectly free to engage in pulpit partisanship — as long as they’re willing to give up the exemptions from taxes that the rest of us pay. (A principle even Reagan-appointee courts have upheld.) So who exactly is seeking “special rights”?

While we’re on the subject… It’s not uncommon for religious bigots posing as “reasonable people” to argue that protections for LGBT people are “different” (i.e. less legitimate) than those against racial protections because LGBT people supposedly chose their “lifestyle,” as the bigots usually put it. Sadly it’s too-often an argument put forth by bigoted people of color.

Sadly too, the “it’s not choice” argument we in the LGBT communities too often buy into ourselves, sometimes invoking contorted personal histories to reassure ourselves and others that “it’s not my fault” that I’m [insert descriptor here].” Now before everyone starts firing up the flamethrowers, I do think both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation can — and usually do have — a biological component; and I recognize that the “born that way” argument is in part driven by the way U.S. civil rights law is written — since it generally (and I’ll come back to that point in a minute) holds that innate characteristics are protected and personal choices aren’t. But the thing is, both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation are spectrums — even though our society generally views them as binaries — and while there’s a hard-wired aspect about where one falls on that spectrum, biology isn’t destiny. Which is why the “it’s not a choice” argument always has an Achilles Heel: there’s just too many examples of people choosing to act in ways contrary to their “nature” — from “political lesbians” (some of whom weren’t necessarily sexually attracted to women) to men who engage is same-sex act when they aren’t women available (in prison, among immigrant populations, etc.) to people who choose to remain closeted about their sex/gender identity and/or sexual orientation (even if they pay a heavy emotional cost for doing so).

So we’d be a lot more honest if we acknowledge that choice can play a role in how one’s sex/gender identity and sexual orientation gets expressed. But religion is a choice too and we still see fit to protect people from religious discrimination. Now the religious bigots in the United States would point out that’s because those protections are written into the Constitution. And they’re right. In fact protections against religious discrimination predate by decades (if not centuries) protections against discrimination based on race, sex, pregnancy, national origins, disability or age. But the common thread among all of these is that they involve aspects that are so central to who someone is that we consider them worthy of protection.

If the Framers were willing to protect a “chosen” part of one’s core identity, why shouldn’t we?

Sarah Whitman points out that the Lawrence King killing raises the question: where are our leaders?

Recent months have brought several disturbing events in our community. Lawrence King was shot in his classroom after being teased and harassed for being gay. Simmie Williams was killed while wearing a dress in Fort Lauderdale. Just yesterday, Duchy Trachtenberg, a Montgomery County Council member who authored a bill outlawing discrimination against transgendered people, announced that she is receiving death threats.

And Joe Solmonese is running around telling our legislators to vote for a non-inclusive ENDA bill?

When King was shot, The LA Times covered the event as a local story. While the LGBT blogsphere immediately spread the news, the mainstream media took much longer to cover the story.

Last year, six African-American teenagers were charged with attempted second-degree murder charges in Jena, Louisiana. There were rallies, online petitions, a legal defense fund was created, The New York Times, New York Post and LA Times all covered the events. John Mellencamp even wrote a song in support of the Jena 6, as they came to be known as.

Why? Because the leaders showed up. They went to the rallies. Among those in attendance? Civil rights activists Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King III. Rappers Mos Def and Salt-n-Pepa showed their support, as did New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. Rapper-actor Ice Cube took it a step further, funding buses to bring protesters from California.

Who was at Lawrence King’s funeral? Where were our leaders?

In this star struck culture, the way to draw attention to an issue is to put a recognizable face out front to draw the press out. Where were Joe Solmonese of HRC, Matt Foreman of NGLTF, Kevin Cathcart of Lambda, Kate Kendall of NCLR, Neil Giuliano of GLAAD? Ellen DeGeneres did her part, but what about the newly out Cheyenne Jackson? Cynthia Nixon? Melissa Etheridge? Where’s the song from Elton John? It takes leadership to bring make the kind of public statement that surrounded the Jena 6.

But we don’t have that….

Coverage of the oral arguments, with this quote of the day (from one of the attorneys):

Justices also asked whether the concept of equality evolves, and, if so, why this is the time to allow same sex marriage. The concept of equality does evolve, Stewart said, “but just because society doesn’t see something as unequal until a given time, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t always unequal or unjust. It just means we were blind to it.”

In addition to the latest round of primaries, California’s Supreme Court hears argument over same-sex marriage today. It’s a bit hard to predict which way they’re likely to rule.

BTW, the foes of same-sex marriage are raising the procreation argument — so I guess by the logic hetero couples who can’t have kids shouldn’t be allowed to marry either…

Personally, I’d like to see the state merely grant civil unions for everyone and leave marriage to the churches.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign issues a press release yesterday talking up their “LGB” support. Taking a look at the Hunter College poll cited by Hillary’s campaign, I found this nugget:”When asked about the proposed federal law making it illegal to discriminate against lesbians, gays, and bisexuals in employment, LGBs (by a margin of 60 to 37 percent) said that those seeking to pass the law were wrong to remove protections for transgendered people in order to get the votes necessary for passage in Congress.”

Interestingly, the Hunter College poll was done by the very same polling firm, Knowledge Networks, used by HRC for it’s “Hail Mary” poll — and funded by a grant from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Unlike the HRC poll, the Hunter College poll published all the details of its responses and methodology.

Hmmm… Hunter College’s poll says 60 percent of gays and lesbians thought excluding gender identity/expression was a mistake, HRC’s poll says 68 percent of them said dump the trannies — now that’s a margin of error…

Interestingly, the Hunter College poll also found the same percentage of respondents (36%) saying “rights of transgender people” and “ending the military’s ban on being openly gay” were “extremely important” goals. (Both tied for sixth on the list of top goals. The other goals, in order of preference, were: enacting employment non-discrimination laws, protections from bias crimes, securing spousal benefits, AIDS funding, legalizing same-sex marriage.)

BTW, as Autumn said: ”The first two paragraphs of the press release might not have mentioned T’s because they didn’t find enough T’s to be statistically significant for their poll, but I would think that in the last paragraph — where she mentions what she would do as president — she certaintly could have added that she was for LGBT civil rights/equality.” Given Hillary’s campaign is relentlessly on-message and never does anything until her people have thoroughly studied, vetted and surveyed the issue, I have a hard time thinking the omission was accidental.