"None so deaf as those that will not hear.
None so blind as those that will not see."
- Mathew Henry -

here f**cking here! (although i am also a staunch supporter for full marriage equality)

I and also a supporter of full marriage equality, but this is looking a lot like HRC and Barney have flunked math and are taking their lack of a grasp on reality from Clinton, or visa versa. If the numbers don't add up, then you can't use fuzzy math to make your point.

Anyone have any 5th grade math books we can send Barney and Joe? I guess we can say that in this case, they aren't smarter than a 5th grader.

Good point, Becky. If we're actually concerned with everything going in order of ease, then....

I live in California. I intend to support the fight to defeat the referendum to write same-sex marriage discrimination into the state constitution, even though it does not at the moment directly affect me.

I'm doing it because I'm an unabashed progressive, and believe it's just the right thing to do.

Yet I also see the need to defeat the referendum on a more personal level.

I believe that there will be a backlash against transgenders should the referendum pass, and that backlash will be exponentially greater than the backlash against gays and lesbians. It will likely undo the numerically more positive attitude Becky wrote about, and I expect there may be a spate of legislation that attempts and in some cases succeeds in undoing the laws and rules allowing transgender to change ID and gender markers in states that now allow it, and make it even more difficult to bring about those changes in those states that don't yet allow changing gender markers or birth certificates.

I also expect there to be a backlash coming from the John Aravosis/Chris Crain/Barney Frank axis of the G/L community, as a desperate attempt to salvage personal self esteem for the dashing of their dreams of joining with the cisgendered, heterosexed majority in equality-in-marriage.

While I'm being glum and melodramatic, let me add that I have a feeling that the aforementioned axis, along with the HRC, may somehow feel that they are owed the grunt labor of the trans community in the coming battle to defeat the referendum. After all, according to Barney, the trans community did a terrible job of educating...

Okay, the rant is done. I do intend to fight for Marriage Equality in California. I will put my good where it will do the most.

Karen Savage

A few years ago, Svend Robinson and egaleCanada (Canada's HRC) fought for and won protections against hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation. (Discrimination in employment, housing etc. are not explicitly covered for either sexual orientation or gender identity, but have been implicitly covered as a result of court rulings... but still remain subject to the opinion of the courts). Same sex marriage was won, retroactive spousal benefits were obtained (which one local GLBT paper called the "last great battle").

Today, membership in GLBT organizations has dwindled, even the gay bars have lost much of their clientele, and people aren't that concerned with rights issues or community. Hate crimes against people based on gender identity are still not proscribed, and discrimination is still not written into legislation because of the apathetic view that it's "covered," while the courts and human rights tribunals still occasionally fail to read that in WRT transfolk.

In 2007, MP Bill Siksay tabled private members bills to attempt to correct both failings. As private members bills, they fail to have the demonstrated support of his own party, egale and other GLB organizations have shown little interest, and they will likely not even reach a reading.

This is how the GLB community has "come back" for Canadian transgender people. And they wonder why so many have taken a strong "trans-or-bust" stance on ENDA (and to be fair, that "so many" includes many GLB folk in the US who recognize past mistakes and wish to not repeat them).

That said, I believe that transfolk very strongly need same-sex marriage, in order to be certain that their marriages (no matter what the pairing) can't be contested from one direction or another. And, ironically, our situations perhaps provide some of the most effective arguments to get past the religious right's defenses. Ironic, then that Aravosis/Crain/Barney Frank/HRC have so little interest in an alliance. :(

Yeah, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Non-discrimination against transgendered vs. gay/lesbian marriage.

Why can't we have both? I don't disagree with your inference that legislative resources are scarce, but I'm not convinced of your implicit argument that pursuing trans non-discrimination laws at the expense of gay/lesbian marriage laws is a wise course to take. Is that what you are saying?

In a recent conversation with my Congresswoman, I was told that HR3685, the inclusive ENDA had the votes in the House to pass last year, but Nancy Pelosi insisted that it be introduced and immediately withdrawn, which is what Tammy Baldwin did.
I don't think this is news to most of the folks who followed this closely.

Not surprising that those are the numbers. However, it is sad that we have been lied to. I too would like marriage equality as well as the other basic rights. However inclusive employment non-discrimination and a hate crimes bill are most important to me as a transperson.

I'm not resorting to statistics. I'm just going to refer to what real Religious Reichers say: we're all freaks, no matter what letter of the alphabet we attribute to ourselves.

That's right. Freaks.

I don't know what kinds of weed Barney smokes when he's home, but I know that, in Kentucky, we have some of the finest weed in the country, and we also have a united GLBT community. Why? Because we all are subject to attack, and we all know it. The fundies hate us all equally, all GLB and T of us. From the pulpit, we all look the same to them. From their moral perches, we're all less than citizens.

I think Frank's problem is that he's from Mass. He gets off easy there. He needs to have to live in someplace like, say, Somerset, Kentucky; Nitro, West Virginia; Clarksville, Tenn; Paoli, Indiana; Bastrop, Texas; or maybe even Gadsden, Alabama, for a year. If he survives, he'll discover that he, as a gay man, is publicly regarded as the lowest type of person, right down with transpeople, in places like that. Right now, the man thinks he's better than us, and he isn't. Yeah, he's a US Congressman - but so is Marilyn Musgrave. US Congressmen can be scumsucking slime, too, you know.

Ooooh - Paoli. You fight dirty, Polar. You could have at least chosen North Vernon (there is no South Vernon or even a Vernon!). At least when you roll into North Vernon they play Dueling Banjos for you... Paoli only gives you the theme from Deliverance.

I think this is one of Becky's best posts yet. It really gives you something to think about. I'm not sure if I agree with the "either-or" mentality, but I'm not sure that's what she's truly advocating so much as juxtaposing against the incrementalist strategy pursued by HRC, Frank, etc.

I also don't see this as "either/or." The article points to the hyprocracy of Barney and HRC's logic when it comes to inclusion. The whole reason they don't want trans people in ENDA is that there is not enough support. I guess they are looking for 75 to 80% majority rather than a measly 66% majority. But, they are willing to support same sex-marriage, regardless of how bad the percentages look. They cannot face the reality of the numbers.

Siouxsie, we can have both, that's the point. Just as we can easily have both sexual orientation non-discrimination and gender identity non-discrimination -- in fact it's easier and takes less resources to get both at the same time.

The thing is that we're being told by certain powerful members of the LGb(t) movement that gender identity non-discrimination is "too hard" and we should table it for now and focus our resources on sexual orientation non-discrimination. It's an approach which is being called "incrementalism," and you've just pointed out how it's a crock.

The point Rebecca is making is that if gender identity is "too hard" and must be de-prioritized, then same-sex marriage is even moreso. It's pointing out the hipocrisy of the "incrementalists" who say we can't fight for gender identity because it doesn't have enough public support, and then throw their all into an endeavor that has even less support.

If they actually following the "incrementalist" philosophy, then they would take all their resources out of marriage and put it into non-discrimination -- not that that would be any smarter a strategic decision than taking all their support out from gender identity non-discrimination and putting it only into sexual orientation non-discrimination.

For argument's sake, let's extend the concept of incrementalism to gay marriage. Let's support marriage of lesbians. At some time in the future, it would then be okay for gays to marry. In the distant future, even transgender folks could get married.

This is what would happen if incrementalism were applied to the gay marriage issue. Why are the rights of some more important than the rights of others?

They aren't.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Yes, Bil, I can fight dirty. Comes with living in this territory. Paoli's definitely bad, I think that comes from an inferiority complex - they just can't compare to Orleans, West Baden, or French Lick.

I should have made it Corydon, actually, whose main distinction is the fact that the KKK was formed there.

As for Becky's post, it's square-on. But I don't need numbers. The "incrementals" in Congress and elsewhere are out of touch with the country. Those ordinary citizens who are in favor of ENDA and gay marriage, for the most part, see it as a all of us or nobody situation. Those who are opposed won't be any less opposed if T's removed. Aravosis and his ilk don't live in my world, don't live in the Bible Belt, don't have a clue what the Religious Reichers think.

You're so on point here, Rebecca.

Vic Basile ran from me in Louisville before I could call his butt out on an incorrect line in his speech at a fundraiser I and others protested by turning our backs to him.

In it he tried to say in defense of incrementalism and the tremendous heat HRC was taking at the time of the ENDA screwing that it took African-Americans 100 years to get the Civil Rights Acts passed.

Wrong.

The incrementalists will NEVER tell you about the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

It stated that all persons, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude were entitled to full and equal employment, of accommodation in "inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." Violators of this law faced fines from $500-$1000 and jail time that ranged from 30 days to 1 year.

That bill was introduced in 1870, FIVE years after emancipation and passed in 1875.

Imagine that- a civil rights bill with teeth protecting a despised minority class.

So I don't want to hear any more lies and excuses from the Franks, Solmoneses and Crains of the world or any 'wait you turn BS'

My people have waited long enough.