Aug 10
2007
Punted| Category: 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, DADT, Debate, Don't Ask, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Don't Tell, ENDA, HRC, Hate Crime Laws, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Pam's House Blend |
The Forum last night wasn’t exactly a huge success. While it was the first of its kind addressing solely the issues that affect the LGBT community the candidates were mostly able to wriggle out of answering a lot of questions that pertained to our equality.
The candidates went in the order that they responded to the invite which shows Hillary responded last while Obama responded first. it looked a lot like the set of Oprah the way seats were laid out and the audience, clearly hand-picked for their notability/recognizability in the queer community looked decidedly uncomfortable.
The order in which I write about the candidates is basically the order at whcih I pull them out of memory.
Edwards did not move positions. Once he realized that it sounded like his position had changed he backtracked immediately with the comment “My positions haven’t changed.” Edwards seems to be as he stated “evolving” but purposely saying, “Oh yeah, I wanna support you, but can’t ‘cuz I won’t get the votes. But my wife supports you, can’t you just take that?”
Kucinich and Gravel, we knew would be in our court. Gravel sounded less crazy than Kucinich, and at the same time actually discussed a lot more than the front runners.
Hillary, even when pressed by the question of “state’s rights” (my submitted question I might add) couldn’t bring herself to answer the question directly. Of the candidates so far I’m still for Kucinich and Gravel for their unaplogetic stances on anything, but that’s a different story. She even at one point said and I’m paraphrasing ‘Even if I went through the things that you all went through for the last 15 years my positions would not be any different.’ If that’s not a kick in the teeth I don’t know what is. When pressed about why she hasn’t introduced legislation in the Senate as a companion bill to the House’s Military Readiness Enchancement Act (MREA), she merely went on about
Bill Richardson lost A LOT of points when he melted down on Melissa’s and Joe’s questions. When asked whether or not he thought homosexuality was a choice his first response was “Yes, it’s a choice.” After three attempts at giving him the chance to answer the question in a different manner he maintained. He only changed his response to that after the forum when pressed about it by blogger Pam Spaulding. The question he was posed by Joe Solmonese which remains unanswered was “If presented with a bill for equal marriage, would you sign it?” His response: “I’ve done everything I can to push for ‘Domestic Partnerships.’” Three times he was asked this as well, twice in the forum and again, by Pam. Simply, he wants us to go on his record. My response to that is that while one’s record is clearly important what you say and what you do know is very important to the survival of your comapaign.
Obama did fairly well however still when pressed about the hard issues couldn’t break from his personal stance. At one point he even, and unfortunatley not many caught it, prioritized us and homophobia as last among all other things that need to be addressed in the black community.
None (other than Edwards briefly) actually seemed to be able to identify with our community and our struggles. Most candidates touched on AIDS and Healthcare and what they’ve done. But clear to me was the bottom line, we’re just not important enough for any of the top tier candidates.
We have a right and a responsibility to demand what’s right form our candidates. We still have a long road ahead of us to get to the 2008 elections and we need to keep pressing these issues to get the answers that we deserve. Human equality is not something that should be “left to the states.” Human dignity is not a votable issue. No more 85% citizenship simply because of who we love or who we’re attracted to. No more getting fired from jobs because our boss just happens to be bigoted against gay people. Whether or not your Creator is God, Jehova, Allah, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or none of the above, we all are guaranteed equal legal status by our constitution and our government and it’s time that we stand up and unite to demand it.
Apr 26
2007
Punted| Category: DADT, Don't Ask, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Don't Tell, Pam's House Blend, Threats |
A press Release today from SLDN says that the Pentagon’s ‘TALON’ (Threat and Local Observation Notices) program that tracked student groups including LGBT activists and labled them a credible threat has been discontinued. This program was discovered back in December 2006 by NBC and was reported by Pam Spaulding and John Arivosis. Below is the press release from SLDN
The Department of Defense (DoD) has announced plans to discontinue its controversial Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON) surveillance program, launched in 2003 track and monitor domestic terror threats. The program came under intense scrutiny after news reports revealed officials were collecting data on demonstrators and protestors, including those within the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. In February 2006, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) filed a federal lawsuit seeking information related to surveillance of LGBT activists and student groups. Documentation released in April 2006 found extensive monitoring of students opposed to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law at New York University, the University of California at Berkeley, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.
“The Pentagon’s surveillance program undermined the constitution and eroded Americans’ privacy rights,” said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for SLDN. “The freedom to dissent and the right to voice that dissent are fundamental bedrocks of American democracy. Rather than wasting time and money peeping through keyholes, the government should strengthen our country’s defense by lifting the ban on open service and welcoming every qualified American to our armed forces.”
In December 2005, Lisa Myers and NBC News reported that Pentagon investigators had records pertaining to protests at campuses across the country, including those organized to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Among the demonstrations listed was a protest at New York University, coordinated with the law school’s LGBT advocacy group, OUTlaw, which was classified as “possibly violent” by the Pentagon. A UC-Santa Cruz “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” demonstration, which included a kiss-in, was also labeled as a “credible threat” of terrorism.
James R. Clapper, Jr., undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told reporters on Tuesday that he is moving to end the program. The Pentagon, Clapper said, “must lay to rest the distrust and concern about the department’s commitment to civil rights.” Clapper acknowledged problems with the TALON program, noting that, “The history of the intelligence community is replete with instances of abuse of civil liberties – well intended, but abuse nonetheless.” He said it is “important that the proper balance be struck between the counterintelligence mission, on one hang, and the protection of civil liberties, on the other.”
The real winners of this, are LGBT citizens who belong to organizations like the ones described above who a) appreciate the freedoms guaranteed to every citizen to peaceably assemble and express their grievances, b) don’t want their privacy violated and c) may want to join the armed services sometime in the near future to serve their country. However, it’s doubtful that any of those students would join until the ban on LGBT citizens is lifted.
Feb 22
2007
Pam| Category: Cross-Posted, HRC, Pam's House Blend, Uncategorized |
[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…)
Feb 20
2007
Punted| Category: Cross-Posted, Debate, HRC, Pam's House Blend |
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…)
Feb 12
2007
Pam| Category: Cross-Posted, Iniative 957, Pam's House Blend, Tab A into Slot B |
(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
Feb 09
2007
Punted| Category: Americans for "Truth", CWA, Lies, Pam's House Blend, Peter LaBarbera, Rules, Threats, Violence |
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.
