Tiny Queer Footballs

MREA Re-Introduction Live-Blog

Punted| Category: Uncategorized | 1 Comment

(Cross-Posted from Pam’s House Blend)
Hello Blenders, this is Daimeon serving up the live-blog Blend for you.  Please be patient with me as this was my first liveblog.  The truth is, it was live earlier but now I’m updating the post to include some more important quotes since I didn’t have a press-kit that the other members had to work with which included the full text of the speeches.  (I have everyone’s except for Rep. Meehan’s, and Rep. Shay’s)

When I arrived at 2, the place was packed with Media and presenters.  The Briefing is going to be starting very soon and I’ll let you know the updates as they come along.  I met with Rebecca Sawyer, Steve Ralls, and Sharra Greer of SLDN, and a special thanks to all of them for setting this up for us.
*At 2:20 PM Rep. Meehan started his comments introducing Marine Sgt. Brian Fricke and SSgt Eric Alva, 36, a native of San Antonio, was the first soldier injured in Iraq.

SSgt. Alva is coming out publicly and will be the official spokesperson of the HRC.

*2:22Representative Meehan is re-introducing the Military Readiness Enhancement Act with 109 bipartisan members’ support.

“There was a recruiting goal defecit in 2005 of 24,000 members.”  24,000 members is a lot.  President Bush wanted to send only 21,000 troops for his “escalation.”  He reiterated the point that there is “[n]o place for discrimination to be codified into policy.”  Again he spoke to the waivers for criminal activity.  He said that the amount of waivers is up “80%” to this day.

*2:30 Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) was the second speaker.  He told the story of how he came to understanding the policy was bad by discussing openly gay former Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R-AZ) story of being in the military and being gay.  During the story he mentioned, “I was a Peace Corps volunteer and conscientious objector,” which is not a typical Republican comment in dealing with war but it’s a welcome admission.  He next spoke on behalf of the bill calling the current policy “cruel.”

SSgt Brian Fricke next spoke of his personal story and why the current policy is failing.

When I came out to colleagues before deploying to iraq, and while I was in Iraq, there was never any difference in the way we interacted with each other.  We still accomplished our missions and maintained the same working environment.  That is because our men and women in uniform are professional, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.  My generation fights today to protect the future of Americans tomorrow.

*At 2:40 SSgt Alva, came out, literally on two levels, speaking from the heart without a prepared speech.  He spoke of his  injury and even re-enlisting to go to Iraq.  More on this later.

“I ask that this nation look at the discrimination that we see in the ranks and judge a person by that”  “My life was nothing more private than anything else.”

*2:47 C. Dixon Osburn then spoke talking about the various ways that service members have been wronged and why this bill is important 13 years after the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Hitting on the points of national security and the Global War on Terror and the needs of the nation should outweigh the bigoted stances of the few who are afraid.

* 2:52  The final speaker was Army Brig. Gen. Pat Foote (Ret.) spoke next.  She called the policy a “most dysfunctional military policy” She underscored the importance of the recent leaders who have come out in support of repeal, Army Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.), and former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen.  She also made the mention of the hypocrisy of the policy concerning the very core values that soldiers must adhere to, especially integrity.  She said, “The institution itself does not respect the individual it serves,” and later added that the policy “defies logic and does not reflect the changing views of the American people.”

*3:00  The panelists answered the media’s questions.  The first question asked was in regards to the level of support from Seaker Pelosi.  Rep. Meehan said that shes been a “Longtime Supporter of lifting the ban.”

The typical question was brought up regarding privacy and shower arrangments.  The answer was as it always is that it doesn’t matter. Sgt.’s Fricke and Alva both spoke about this with the added support of Rep. Shays.
The question was raised of how does the chairman feel?  Historically he has not supported the repeal of the policy.  What makes Rep Meehan think it will make it through committee? He said he’s “having a hearing.”

I asked the congressman offline because they didn’t see my hand raised…that under Massachusetts law if a person in the National Guard were to marry his/her partner would he or she be able to receive the benefits entitled to them, for example if a partner was deployed and perished overseas or in duty to the governor.  Rep. Meehan was unsure but said he’d get back to me.

Sharra Greer provided the answer to me.  The answer was no because the National Guard can be federalized and is therefore subject to the rules of DOMA if the bill passes because Federal law trumps state law.  I can see this definitely being challenged and possibly winning in the courts if the bill passes.  Yet another reason to support the repeal of this heinous policy.
The briefing has ended.  I want to thank Pam for recommending me to Rebecca Sawyer to live-blog this event.  It was a definite eye-opener (eye-popper) for me to try to accomplish this live.  I had to use my cell phone for an Internet connection because the room was not wired for Internet access.  Good thing I give Verizon an extra $50 a month for that privelage.

Let me know what you think. And if you have any more questions let me know.  I’ll try to answer them and if I don’t have all the information we can get the answers from SLDN.

You Ka-Chinged, HRC Listened

Punted| Category: Uncategorized | 0 Comments

Pam of PHB

Dems … see the community as an ATM

Miss Wild Thing 

[L]ately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden.

This has been bantered around, and a lot of people feel they’ve been treated like an ATM by the Dems and the HRC in their “fights for equality.”  HRC in their quest to promote Democratic candidates and causes under the banner of equality have forgotten their way, but they sure haven’t forgotten how to make money.

Feeding on the LGBT community’s affluence is something that Dems and the HRC are good at and what a better way than to offer credit?

With every purchase you make the HRC gets money.  Isn’t that special?   This isn’t a card that I’ll be getting any time soon because first of all I don’t need any more credit, and secondly, the HRC hasn’t done much except be cheerleaders for the Democratic caucus while the Democrats remain spineless on issues concerning LGBT equality.  The “T” community has especially felt the effects of the lack of true support.  They don’t need my money, what they need is to re-prioritize.  And frankly, I don’t want to be used metaphorically or literally as an ATM by any organization unless my fees are paid.

Hate Speech and a Beating

Kevin| Category: Uncategorized | 0 Comments

Wrap up on the ‘State of the Movement’ panel

Pam| Category: Cross-Posted, HRC, Pam's House Blend, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

[UPDATE: Metro Weekly’s coverage is here.]

I was in DC on Tuesday for a panel discussion on the State of the Movement, moderated by Sean Bugg of Metro Weekly. It was held in the Human Rights Campaign community room; according to Sean about 100 folks came to the gathering.

On the panel: Chris Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans; Herndon Davis of the National Black Justice Coalition; Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Mara Keisling of National Center for Transgender Equality; John Marble, of National Stonewall Democrats; C. Dixon Osburn, from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network; Joe Solmonese, HRC; and yours truly.

The overall impressions I came away with are after the flip… (more…)

HRC Punts, Football Kicks Back

Punted| Category: Cross-Posted, Debate, HRC, Pam's House Blend | 0 Comments

HRC holds a ‘State of the Movement’ panel tonite at the HRC Headquarters in Washington, DC.  The Panel will be moderated by Sean Bugg of Metro Weekly. 

The problem is many think that HRC is a notorious Blue Team memeber pretending to be a GLBT rights organization.   

While this is debated, “kevinbegood” a regular blender at PHB came up with a scathing and undeniably on point argument against the HRC or any other group that pretends to be doing a lot for the GLBT community but doesn’t have much to show for their efforts.

Comments after the flip. (more…)

Shapiro on marriage equality — his key is in the tailpipe

Pam| Category: Cross-Posted, Iniative 957, Pam's House Blend, Tab A into Slot B | 0 Comments

(Cross-Posted with Permission by Pam from Pam’s House Blend)

If you straight folks out in Washington state don’t think the unhinged social control advocates aren’t aiming to make sure you live by their biblical principles, take a look at Human Events columnist Ben Shapiro. He knows that the citizen Defense of Marriage Alliance initiative (Initiative 957 ) requiring procreation by het couples is a political statement by equality forces — but he tries to reason why it’s really not about the children — it’s about the parts fitting. Boy, this defense of bigotry is tired.

Their point in Washington is purportedly to prove that traditional marriage is not solely about children — and that if it is not about children, it is about discrimination for its own sake. But even same-sex marriage advocates realize that though traditional marriage sees children as the first priority, it does not rest its legitimacy solely on the basis of child-bearing and rearing….Women and men are inherently different. They are not interchangeable parts. Men have different strengths and weaknesses than women. A marital relationship between a man and a woman provides spiritual enrichment for each. The union between a single man and a single woman is, as the liturgy says, blessed.

…In one sense, Washington’s same-sex advocates do us a favor: They make clear that in order to deny homosexual marriage, we must uphold the beautiful and natural distinctions between men and women. They also make clear that we must uphold the value of heterosexuality over homosexuality. We must take up the gauntlet and, in doing so, vindicate the possibility of a higher spiritual elevation through the deepest possible human relationship.
– The Homosexual Assault On Traditional Marriage, by Ben Shapiro

OK. I couldn’t resist posting another nugget from Ben, who is also the author of  Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting our Future. He further explains the “parts fitting” argument with this interesting analogy.

The fact that certain traditional marriages do not produce children does not invalidate the general point that men and women belong together, just as the fact that broken cars exist does not demonstrate that ignition keys ought generally to be put in exhaust pipes.

Related:
* Freedom to Marry video on Washington State’s DOMA initiative
* Washington State Defense of Marriage initiative rocks the homophobes
* A ball of Freeper confusion over Washington’s Defense of Marriage initiative

3 Minutes and 30 Seconds to Debate WA DOMA Initiative

Punted| Category: CNN, Debate, Family Research Council, Freedom to Marry, Iniative 957, Lies, Video | 0 Comments

I think Wolfson of Freedom to Marry does his best to convey the real meaning of Initiative 957 and Yeost doesn’t really have much of an argument using doublespeak to first say the pro-equality side is “cruel” for “mocking” infertile couples, but turns around and speaks of the importance that children need to be raised by their biological parents. 

Related: Marriage is for Children (at least in Washington State)

Out-of-Bounds Leads to Penalty Kick

Punted| Category: Americans for "Truth", CWA, Lies, Pam's House Blend, Peter LaBarbera, Rules, Threats, Violence | 3 Comments

Recently a commenter on Pam’s House Blend went out of bounds of the Blend community rules by posting private information and making threatening comments in the comments section of a blog posting that briefly discussed a story that was broken by Dr. Kevin Kaatz, a blogger on this site.  The commenter, ”Barry G. Wick,” has been kicked off of the blog and his comments deleted permanently as a result.

Consequently this was picked up immediately by Concerned Women for America and Peter Labarbera who politicized this event by first posting a press release about it blaming Pam Spaulding for Mr. “Wick’s” comments.

In what was, at the very least, an apparent attempt to intimidate and frighten LaBarbera, who is married with children, “House Blend” published his home address in a January 13, 2007, thread titled, “Saturday this and that.” Shortly thereafter, someone identified as “Barry G. Wick” posted the following comments: “It’s across from a park in an area with cul de sacs. I’d bet it’s a residence … and across from a park. Snipers take note.”

“Wick” later seemed to suggest that shooting LaBarbera would amount to an act of self-defense: “Self-defense for gay folks isn’t PC, is it? No, we have to be sure that we’re victims all the time. … When we start standing up for ourselves, we lose all the status of an under class. I refuse to be part of an underclass. I’m equal. And I’m gonna use any language, even outrageous language, to get my point across. … I’m a citizen … equal, proud, and willing to defend my way of life with my life. …”

Later in the same thread “Wick” made his true intent clear: “If I were Azerbaijani and living in Russia right now, I’d want to advocate violence against skinheads … [LaBarbera] and others like him ought to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what future awaits them from a cadre of selected defenders willing to give up everything in order to protect the lives of gay and lesbian citizens. The greatest thing ever to happen to the [Martin Luther King] movement was the Black Panthers. Americans were shocked by an open display of firearms and Black Pride … Pushing back verbally … or with selected action isn’t dishonorable, it’s necessary.” (emphasis Peter Labarbera’s)

Needless to say that threats of violence, whether serious or joking, are COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and will get you banned from this and many other sites.  It’s hard to monitor comments at all times and Pam has said as much on her blog and in her emails to Peter Labarbera.

Being on the recieving end of threats of violence as a lot of us have been is never fun.  It however is not a ball we here at Tiny Queer Footballs will ever toss back to either side of this debate. 

It is also important to note that Concerned Women for America, have contacted Pam’s employer due to the private information that Peter Labarbera has posted on his website.  Peter should condemn such actions as IT WAS NOT Pam who posted the comments.  Concerned Women for America should be ashamed of themselves for politicizing this event and offering no correction as Peter LaBarbera clearly has. 

On a side note that still needs some mentioning.  Mr “Wick” has faxed a personal letter of apology to Concerned Women of America and Peter LaBarbera.

Marriage is for Children (at least in Washington State)

Kevin| Category: Uncategorized | 0 Comments

(I’ve crosslisted this one with my blog) 

A group called The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, located in Washington State, is introducing a ballot measure that would require newly married straight people to have children within three years, or have their marriages annulled.  Why?  Because the Washington State Supreme Court, in not allowing gays and lesbians to marry, said that the purpose of a marriage was to produce children.  So now it is time for the State Supreme Court to put up or shut up.  The group that is putting it together isn’t taking it seriously, but doing it to show the ridiculousness of the State Supreme Court ruling.   I say go for it.  It is time for States who won’t allow gays and lesbians to marry to live up to the laws that the majority pass.

Their initiate (957) states:

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

And their reasoning:

What we are about

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

It will be interesting to see how the fundamentalists deal with this one.  After all, it is their language that marriage is for children.  I also like the idea that it throws the ball back at them, with their relationships in the spotlight.  Of course, I don’t agree with the ballot, but no one else will either.  It will highlight the problems, however.  And that is always good. 

It won’t stop there. They have plans for two other ballot initiatives:

The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

High Steaks and Lowering the Bar

Punted| Category: Fundies, Good-As-You, Hate Crime Laws, Threats, Violence | 2 Comments

Our fellow football, Jeremy Hooper, of Good As You (and this writer’s inspiration to blog), was typographically accosted in his comment section by a not-so-anonymous or bright reader.

In recognition of the great work that Jeremy does in the gay community to point out and respond to gay-centric news and anti-gay rhetoric with humor and fact he has been featured on “In The Life” which is airing on PBS throughout the month of February.

But this attack on Jeremy (typed on his blog) is 1) grammatically incorrect and 2) threatening the very safety and life of the blogger if Jeremy does something “gay” in front of him or his children.

You CAN’T just expect everyone to be okay with you, and your life. Your (sic) a fag, and that fine (sic), but keep it to yourself. Trust me, if I ever walk by you on the street with my kids and I see you kissing or holding hands with some dude, I’ll brake (sic) every bone in your gay little body. Keep your shit behind closed doors, so children can’t see you.

Jeremy, in his ever-so-witty way and not one to respond with dripping bile had this to say in response.

My bones are accelerating an exorbitantly high rate of speed?  I mean, sure, holding hands with my partner really revs my engines, but I didn’t realize that put my bones in a place where they need “braking.”

But as I was mulling over how, exactly, one goes about putting the brakes on my femur and clavicle, I remembered something: This respondent had left his email address along with his comments. Then I remembered: Hey, I know how to Google!  So wanting to learn more about this brake expert in case my car ever needs a tune up, I inserted his email, beefman500@hotmail.com, into the search engine to see what I could find.

Yes, the commenter trying to be anonymous with “StraightGuy” left his real email address.  Jeremy being the smart sleuth he is found out that beefman500 is really Nick Peronace of Enterprise Steaks. 

Please contact the beefman, but take the high road and don’t resort to his level of attack.  Show him what true compassion really is.  And let others know not to buy steaks from him.  After all, bad PR is bad PR.  Maybe a pinch in the wallet will make him re-think his violent and intolerent ways.

Further coverage on Joe.My.God, Pam Spaulding, Queerty.

**Update:  Beefman500 has quite an Internet paper trail and could he be bi-sexual? (see last entry)  Other’s dislike him as well. (Google-Cached)