|
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog parses the queer alphabet soup, gets his gay history wrong, and kicks up the dust on ENDA, throwing in a skewed perspective on bisexuals and transfolk, to boot:Oct. 8, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- Like an ever-expanding mushroom cloud of diversity, every few years America's gay leaders and activists welcome a new category of member to the community. Wikipedia walks us through our complicated family history: "LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] or GLBT are the most common terms [to describe the gay community] ... When not inclusive of transgender people it is shortened to LGB. It may also include two additional Qs for queer and questioning (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (LGBTQ, LGBTQQ, GLBTQ2); a variant being LGBU, where U stands for "unsure", an I for intersex (LGBTI), another T for transsexual (LGBTT), another T (or TS or the numeral 2) for two-spirited people, and an A for straight allies or asexual (LGBTA). At its fullest, then, it is some permutation of LGBTTTIQQA."
In simpler times we were all gay. But then the word "gay" started to mean "gay men" more than women, so we switched to the more inclusive "gay and lesbian." Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest), and by the early 1990s we were the lesbian, gay and bisexual, or LGB community. Sometime in the late '90s, a few gay rights groups and activists started using a new acronym, LGBT -- adding T for transgender/transsexual. And that's when today's trouble started. America's gay community, or rather, its leadership, is apoplectic over the imminent passage of the first federal gay civil rights legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA.
...
Worthwhile read: complete original article, responses, and follow-up here.
"Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays,..." Clearly Aravosis is too young and isolated from other queer activist communities to recall the centrality of bis or transfolk to what we used to call, in simpler times, the gay lib movement. All these freaky queers parading around asking for equal rights, in all their awful diversity, are just soooo confusing to him. But I'm glad that he's trying to figure it out, and helping others figure it out.
To me the central idea is that of discriminatory treatment of sexual minorities. I think framing the political debate in those terms is accurate, fair, positive, and understandable to the general public.  &a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ad s/click_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/opi nion/content/large.html@Right"&a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/a dstream_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/opi nion/content/large.html@Right" width="300" height="250" border="0" alt="" /&am p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&am p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;am p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
|
|
The New Yorker cover does the bearded queer cover again:
"Narrow stance" by Barry Blitt
Ahmedinejad isn't nearly as cute as the (also) diminutive Afghani president Hamid Karzai.
But who wears sandals cruising the men's room?
|
|
Gravel, Kucinich call for marriage equality in historic GBLT forum
http://wolfbear.livejournal.com/175057.html
Queer politics went prime time last night. The HRC* / Logo "debate" with most of the Democratic and zip-zero-zilch of the Republican candidates was a smoothly run series of panel interviews before a small live audience. The panel was finalized at the last minute and included Jonathan Capehart and HuffPost blogger Margaret Carlson as moderator, as well as HRC's Joe Salmonese. It seemed that rockstar-and-knows-it Melissa Etheridge had bought herself a seat on the panel from the start.
As expected, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich (the guy who has introduced a bill to impeach Dick Cheney) and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (the guy who ended the Vietnam War military draft) affirmed their solid support of full marriage equality and GLBTIQ civil rights, and talked about their vision of an America where GLBT people are respected and protected equally under the law. The panelists and audience responded warmly, but distant and patronizing at times.
Gravel and Kucinich distinguished themselves from all other contenders attending the debate, each making sincere, impassioned calls for complete GLBTIQ equality. They, as well as others, called for the repeal of DOMA, the the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the strengthening of ENDA.
Gravel and Kucinich's unequivocal support of gay-rights issues were in marked contrast with the frontrunners Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, who struggled to defend their unspecified religious choices for anti-gay marriage stances. Edwards was visibly uncomfortable but warmed. Bill Richardson defenestrated himself when he chose "choice" on the essential sexual orientation "choice" vs. "nature" question.
Gravel spoke about his long history of human rights activism, starting as a freshman state legislator from Alaska forty years ago, and he asked voters to support him. He repeated from his interview with Rachel Maddow last week (the audio still conspicuously MIA from the show's website) his direct plea to GLBTIQ people, "Come out of the closet, please."
In their closing statements both Gravel and Kucinich sincerely offered GLBTIQ people and issues 100% of their support, and asked for the community's grassroots support, and for our vote - contrasting with the other candidates' equivocations on equal rights issues, followed by hopeful assertions of what they promise to do when they become president.
Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were the only ones who clearly got it. They are really speaking to GLBTIQ issues. Here we have presidential candidates coming on cable TV (Logo is carried in 28 million homes) and freely discussing GLBTI issues and openly expressing their love and respect for gay people. Dennis and Mike each should have been handed a bouquet of flowers as they stepped down from their sessions.
Melissa Etheridge's inclusion on the panel, to the exclusion of any national gay or lesbian progressive talk radio show hosts - Air America's Rachel Maddow, Laura Flanders, and David Bender - was a real disappointment. It shows how gay activist groups like HRC are still playing to win the approval of the privileged mainstream, instead of effectively utilizing the existing LGBT progressive media. Mike Signorile from Sirius OutQ also would have served better. (Or hey, what about Anderson Cooper!)
Reaction in the queer blogosphere has been mixed, some folks continuing to support the frontrunners, whose positions cannot be considered progressive at all, for some bizarre reasons, usually related to candidates' superficial appearance. Much of it seems just aping of the MSM spin "they're not electable" or "they don't have a chance of winning." One commentator on the event calls Kucinich a troll and then dismisses him as a candidate, saying "Sorry, we're too shallow." Gay people, grow up.
I noticed that although the word bisexual was used perhaps a half-dozen times, as in "gay-lesbian-bisexual-and-transgender," there was no specific discussion of civil rights of bisexuals, nor was a single bisexual-identified person, erm, identified.
Wendy Curry from BiNet points out in a "B" Report on the event that
2 politicians used the abbreviation LGBT (out of 6) - Clinton and Obama
2 politicians used the phrase "gay, lesbian, and transgender" (Obama & Gravel). Obama some how lost an initial he had previously included
The word bisexual was used exactly twice - both by moderators and both in reference to behavior and HIV
No one used the phrase "sexual minorities" either, I believe.
Defintiely some bearish types in the audience, I must note. The after-"debate" post-game with Jason Bellini was nicely done: especially comedian Alec Mapa with some funny and thoughtful reactions to the event. ¡Bravo! to Kucinich and Gravel, and kudos to Logo and HRC for putting on "The Visible Vote." Overall, an amazing event, certainly historical in our march toward equality.
When is the Log Cabin Republican sponsored debate of the GOP candidates scheduled?
+
http://wolfbear.livejournal.com/175057.html
* In Rachel Maddow's Campaign Asylum pre-event take on the event. Rachel reminds us that HRC, the organization sponsoring the event, is so proud to be gay that they don't include the word GAY or LESBIAN or BISEXUAL or TRANSGENDER or QUEER in their name, logo, or even the name of the event. For a blow by blow, check out the HuffPo liveblog of the event.
|
|
Taking back the world from psycho zealots, one hex at a time:
Lesbians Claim Credit For Falwell Demise http://www.bilerico.com/2007/05/003107.php “The Lesbian Death Angels, concerned that Rev. Falwell’s followers will misattribute the cause of their leader’s demise to their antigod or to some weenie group like Soulforce, have announced that, in a mass worldwide action, they hexed at 10:30 am today and that the subject of their hex was the Rev. Jerry Falwell. In other words, they are claiming to be responsible for Jerry’s death and wish the world to know that they are proud of it to boot. “The LDA is the international body of pro-choice radical lesbians who meet in secret and not-so-secret cells, covens, and as individual practitioners each Tuesday morning to try to set the world back on its axis one hex at a time. Previous targets have included rapists who found themselves strangely compelled to walk into police stations and turn themselves in and others. This is one of the few successful hexes they have publicly taken credit for. “The LDA is still contemplating their next target for early karmic justice. The list of potentials is long. They wish to thank the Goddess for her swift response today.”
Who's next?Current Music: Rachel Maddow - AAR |
|
|
Nov. 22nd, 2006 @ 08:13 pm
|
|---|
|
Wasn't this the same RI lesbian couple that just got married earlier this year? Of course, Rocco was a Connecticut resident and I was a Rhode Islander when we got married in Massachusetts. But I had lived and paid property taxes in Mass. for six years just prior, and we were considering moving to the Bay State as well, but eventually decided it best for me to pull up stakes (again) and become a Nutmegger. So all the legal machinations going on in MA and RI here will likely apply to us - not to mention the oddity of also having gotten a civil union here.
+
Gay.com » Advocate News published Wednesday, November 22, 2006 A lesbian couple married in Massachusetts has filed for divorce in Rhode Island, setting up a legal conundrum for judges in a state where the laws are silent on the legality of same-sex marriage. Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston of Providence were married after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage starting in 2004. They filed for divorce in Rhode Island on Oct. 23, citing irreconcilable differences, Chambers' attorney, Louis Pulner, said Wednesday. Ormiston declined to comment. Rhode Island Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah Jr. has yet to decide whether his court has jurisdiction and said he believes it is the first filing for a same-sex divorce in the state. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for Dec. 5. Massachusetts became the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry after the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to ban it. Until recently, though, it was up in the air whether out-of-state couples could marry in Massachusetts. In September, a Massachusetts judge decided that nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned same-sex marriage and said Rhode Island couples could legally marry there. "Now the ultimate question is whether the state will recognize or determine whether it has jurisdiction to handle an out-of-state divorce when we don't have any case law that accepts or rejects same-sex marriage," Pulner said.
Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch said it is up to the courts and legislature to decide whether the state recognizes same-sex unions. Massachusetts remains the only state to allow same-sex marriage. New Jersey's high court ruled in October that that state, too, must offer same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, but it left it to lawmakers to decide by April whether to call the unions "marriages." Two other states have civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples -- Vermont in accordance with a court order and Connecticut through a vote of its legislature. In Connecticut, attorneys for eight same-sex couples filed an appeal Wednesday with the Supreme Court in a case arguing that the 2005 decision there to legalize same-sex civil unions rather than marriage violates the couples' basic constitutional rights. The lawsuit, dismissed by a lower court in March, says civil unions are inferior in status to marriage. (Ray Henry with contributions by Stephanie Reitz, AP)
|
|
In his reply to my last post, the handsome and talented ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) bearfaced asked an excellent question:
Hi Ron .. forgive me for appearing ignorant but what does "registered green" mean ?
I want to respond in an original post to your question, Justin. Here's the Green Party USA website homepage, which I encourage folks to investigate, but here's the rundown on the Green Party's platform, which I feel to be the only political party that speaks directly and succinctly to the root causes that concern me: http://www.gp.org/
I am a proud registered Green Party voter. The Green Party is international in scope and runs candidates locally all over the world. So here are some thoughts on how I came to find out about the Green Party's platform, which I feel to be the only political party that speaks directly and succinctly to the root causes that concern me, and the only one that has treated me with respect as a sexual minority. It's a succinct and sincere story.
When I moved from Boston to Providence and had to register for the first time in 10 years, I decided I could no longer abide by the gutless stupidity in the Democratic Party that allowed a malevolent fool like George W Bush to steal the election. I had always thought that, despite having been manipulated by Ralph Nader and the two major political parties for their own means, the Green Party platform seemed to represent the things that most matter to me. So when I went to their Website and saw how the Green Party stands unequivocally in their stance on gay rights and the environment, I decided that I was going to vote with my feet, so to speak, and register in Rhode Island as a Green Party voter.
Here's the Green Party platform, called the Ten Key Values:
Grassroots Democracy
Social Justice
Ecological Wisdom
Non-violence
Decentralization
Community-based Economics
Feminism
Diversity
Responsibility
Future Focus
I encourage everyone to investigate the Green Party and see how it offers a real alternative to the idiocy of the two-party system that is at the root of many of the political evils in the USA. The Greens have a clear vision and policy agenda that puts political ideas and principle above the influence of big money. Among the things you'll find at http://www.gp.org are links to local greens, candidates, press releases, the Green Party platform and lots more. You can also sign up for email alerts and keep up with the issue activism that the Green National Committee is involved with.
Justin, here's the Green Party UK website. The Green Party of the UK was founded in 1973, the first in Europe. Originally called 'The People Party', it changed its name to 'The Ecology Party' and then, in 1985, to 'The Green Party'. It has encouraged the growth of separate Green Parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Currently the Wales Green Party remains in The Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW). Here's the bearish Keith Taylor of the Brighton and Hove Green Party. ;-D}
And here's the bearish Cliff Thornton, the Green candidate for Connecticut governor, whom I met Sunday.
Whodauthunkit, there are already over 350 Green Party candidates in 2006. Let's all get behind at least one of them.
Hey smartass greenguys! Let's work on getting some definitions here, OK? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party
One other thing about being a Green, that's actually kind of sweet and romantic. When Rocco and I met, it wasn't before we discovered that our political temperants are fairly in sync. Not that it's the most important factor of compatability, but it's certainly something to consider when considering how well we would get along. I know personally that you can't necessarily choose whom you fall in love with, but I doubt I could ever fall in love and marry a Republican. Well, imagine my delight when I discovered that Rocco is also a registered Green. It was one of those things that just tell you so much about another person. Having the guts to leave the Democratic Party and register as a Green is very unusual, and showed me how sympatico Rocco and I are in our political sensibilities.
So ain't that romantic? Two green daddybears, sittin' in a tree...Current Mood: Ned-errific! Current Music: AAR - Marc Riley |
|
|
