News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Frank Rich - 'The Bigots' Last Hurrah'. Is it?

by: Pam Spaulding

Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 21:00:00 PM EDT


I largely agree with Frank Rich's POV in his NYT op-ed, "The Bigots' Last Hurrah." The professional homophobes are on the retreat, licking their wounds after a series of court decisions (IA), legislative successes (VT), and meltdowns (Rick Warren, National Org. for Marriage).
Far from terrifying anyone, "Gathering Storm" has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago. None may top Stephen Colbert's on Thursday night, in which lightning from "the homo storm" strikes an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A "New Jersey pastor" whose church has been "turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch" declares that he likes gay people, "but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies."

Yet easy to mock as "Gathering Storm" may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America's anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it's idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it's mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

It is, but if you're living in a state where the political climate is less hospitable, like the deep South, it's a very different picture than the one Rich is painting. It's a common problem that I see with those writing from more progressive enclaves -- the mistake that the progress has some sort of magic trickle-down effect everywhere. It isn't the bigot's last hurrah, it is the spiraling downfall of the professional anti-gays, but they aren't going down without a fight where the territory is still fertile.
As the case against equal rights for gay families gets harder and harder to argue on any nonreligious or legal grounds, no wonder so many conservatives are dropping the cause. And if Fox News and Rick Warren won't lead the charge on same-sex marriage, who on the national stage will take their place? The only enthusiastic contenders seem to be Republicans contemplating presidential runs in 2012. As Rich Tafel, the former president of the gay Log Cabin Republicans, pointed out to me last week, what Iowa giveth to the Democrats, Iowa taketh away from his own party. As the first stop in the primary process, the Iowa caucuses provided a crucial boost to Barack Obama's victorious and inclusive Democratic campaign in 2008. But on the G.O.P. side, the caucuses tilt toward the exclusionary hard right.

In 2008, 60 percent of Iowa's Republican caucus voters were evangelical Christians. Mike Huckabee won. That's the hurdle facing the party's contenders in 2012, which is why Romney, Palin and Gingrich are now all more vehement anti-same-sex-marriage activists than Rick Warren. Palin even broke with John McCain on the issue during their campaign, supporting the federal marriage amendment that he rejects. This month, even as the father of Palin's out-of-wedlock grandson challenged her own family values and veracity, she nominated as Alaskan attorney general a man who has called gay people "degenerates." Such homophobia didn't even play in Alaska - the State Legislature voted the nominee down - and will doom Republicans like Palin in national elections.

This is a long-term win, don't get me wrong, but it's pretty clear that we cannot cheer the Republicans' inability to find a winning formula for the future as long as Democrats tolerate the homophobes inside its party.

Even in Blue New York we see State Senator Rubén Díaz brazenly holding up marriage equality ("As long as you need me, there will be no gay marriage") with the same tired fundie theocracy bigotry we see spewing from the Republican fringe. As I blogged earlier, he goes unchallenged by his peers because they fear the race card being thrown down. I don't know what's worse -- open bigotry on the Right, or the enabling of homophobia within a party that should know better.

And in what is excellent timing on this matter, Andrés Duque of Blabbeando has posted about the National Organization for Marriage's efforts to make inroads in the Latino community in New York with its bigotry. More below the fold, including video.

Pam Spaulding :: Frank Rich - 'The Bigots' Last Hurrah'. Is it?
These folks are clearly not aware of any "last hurrah"  -- they mean business.
So you would probably think that if a NOM Board Member spoke to media about the bill, everyone would be talking about how NOM's Gathering Storm might have arrived in New York.

And it did (quietly):

 

The two clips above are from Friday's edition of the weekly Spanish-language political show "Pura Politica" on Time Warner Cable's NY1 news channel (CLICK on video to open larger YouTube window and read my full translation of the exchange).  It features a debate between Pedro Julio Serrano from the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force and Luis Tellez from The Witherspoon Institute, as moderated by political reporter Juan Manuel Benitez.  Mr. Tellez also happens to be one of five members of NOM's Board of Directors.

So, while Rev. Diaz was huffing-and-puffing and grabbing everyone's attention, here was NOM's first media foray after the Paterson announcement - no big flashy display and no attention-whoring announcements - just an attempt to speak directly to Latinos in their language.  In other words, a similar under-the-radar strategy that foes of marriage equality in California used with minority communities in their successful defeat of Prop. 8

Rich's column, while it may make us feel confident, should be tempered by the realization that the hardcore bigots don't give up. They never will. And we shouldn't let down our guard.

It would be a pity to see the realization by the homobigot Republicans that they are heading down the wrong path but the Dems continuing to squirm and step away from promises to fight for equality out of fear.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
You're right about Rich's blinkered view.
He always writes as if New York City was America.  And he has always had a tendency to conflate cultural advances (Will 'n' Grace, Angels in America) with political ones.  Even here in Pittsburgh, which most people seem to think of as an East Coast city, it's usually pretty clear how insular his view of events can be.  (Pittsburgh has its cultural roots in the Old South--but that's another discussion.)

Don't get me wrong, I think Rich is a terrific writer and a great ally to our movement.  But he does tend to have that narrow, bi-coastal view of the country.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary


Generations
... but Rich is right, I think, in his assessment of the younger generations.  On the coasts or in the flyover states, more and more teens and young adults have absolutely no issues with same-gender marriage.

Which is not to suggest that we let down our guard, but rather to fight with our heads held high, with full knowledge that we are totally going to win this thing.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem


[ Parent ]
But there's a tendency toward laziness
Not that there isn't a generational shift -- but in the implication that simple inertia will push everything into the win column.

The Iowa decision took a lot of long-term planning and strategizing... as did the Lawrence decision in Texas.

It's going to take planning, resources and tenacity to clear the books from what the anti-gay forces have done for the last 25+ years.

Take Houston for example -- we are poised to elect a lesbian for Mayor, yet our city charter still has a clause the prohibits the city from having a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.

I don't want a balkanized country with GLBT people treated differently simply because of geography... and our civil rights strategy needs to acknowledge that possibility if we don't actively work to keep that from happening.


[ Parent ]
I completely appreciate that ...
... and emphatically agree with you.  (See the second paragraph of my comment, above.)

AND ... we are looking at this situation from the POV of gay activists.  Whether GLBT or straight allies, that's what most of us are.  Frank Rich is looking at this from the POV of a straight guy who can't help but notice that the homophobic wingnutters are flailing around like fish drowning in air.

As gay activists, we know that we have to keep fighting.  And, Rich is correct - even from the view of his Manhattan penthouse ... there wasn't much of a hue and cry over Iowa and Vermont, save one ad that is more famous for being parodied than anything else.  That Vermont didn't even make the evening news in two of the major networks was very telling.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that Rich isn't wrong about any of this; he just looks at the issue from a different place.  And I thought it was a good read.  And ... I'm not about to give up the fight.  

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem


[ Parent ]
By your own formulation
Frank is the person we most want to recognize the situation for what it is. if not, he will ignore the problems as they will continue to arise because he will say 'we are done with this already." We do not want straight allies thinking they are done wi th out strutggle.

[ Parent ]
Done
I guess I didn't hear him say "we are done with this already" so much as I heard him say, "oh my Yord, these homophobes are making perfect asses out of themselves, and I think the country has turned a corner when it comes to gay rights and it's clear to me that those fighting for equality are going to win."  Future tense.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem

[ Parent ]
he's talking from a place of an insular enclave
a lot of people read and listen to what they say, and believe the homophobes are right. THis is true even in CA where one woman- just to give an example said she was liberal but was concerned about her kids being converted to homosexuality in the schools. You and I may think that argument is stupid. So may Rich. But it's a mistake to assume that a great majority of peo feel the same way just because they are not running int eh streets regarding the issue.  

[ Parent ]
Right, one anecdotal example
about one woman in California proves your point; Rich is in an insular enclave. Do you understand the concept of small sample size?

Rich's argument, and Nate Silver's argument, is that statistical surveys of large groups of people, not just an anecdote here, another anecdote there, show that the young are far more tolerant of GLBT rights than their parents.

It is a mistake to assume to that an anecdotal example here, another anecdotal example there, is to be relied more upon than properly designed and conducted statistical surveys.


[ Parent ]
He's wrong because that assumption is always made
With regard to race, it was made. i am not saying these don't improve under such theories, but they are decades, not years in the making. In other words, it took from 1955 when Brown v Board until 2008 (53 years) for us to see a black guy as President. Nor does his theory of change address not only bigotry intertia but also it assumes progress without having worked to obtain it. As the other poster mentions, it's a bit of laziness.  

[ Parent ]
And Rich is only
talking about marriage equality and gay adoption, which are only 2 items of the many forms of discrimination against gay people.

[ Parent ]
True
Although on the other front there is sizeable (as in 80 percent) national support. the problem there is abotut the national politicians who refuse to admit that times have changed. This is another layer of problems.

[ Parent ]
Equality Under the Law
Anyone who studies the broad subject matter of civil rights in America, from suffrage to MLK Jr. to Stonewall, knows that equality under the law does not immediately turn all hearts and minds to your side.

And I don't think Frank Rich believes that either.  There's no indication of that in his column.  What he is saying is that equality for GLBT persons under the law is inevitable.  And I believe that to be true as well.

And then we'll still have a big, big hill to climb.

"There are two kinds of people in this world -- the kind who separate the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't."  -- Gloria Steinem


[ Parent ]
Why is your standard someone of that oppressed minority
becoming president? Simply as a matter of statistics, if everything is equal, the probability of a particular oppressed minority becoming president is going to be small.

Secondly, yes, attitudes towards a particular issue are decades in the making. Just as attitudes towards gay rights have changed over the decades. How GLBT people are viewed in 2009 is infinitely different from how they were viewed in the 50s, the 70s, the 80s, even the 90s.

Why do you assume that just because he is pointing out the the issue of GLBT rights is a generational one, he is assuming progress without having to work to obtain it. He could very well be assuming the opposite, that the progress has happened because the refusal of the GLBT community to give up.


[ Parent ]
Because is a realistisc barometer of people's attitudes
It's also not the only barometer. It is one of several thousand I could have listed,b ut its the most prominent one. I am also not assuming. Youseem to have a lot of baggagea bout being dealing with reality. The reality is that people's attitudes change slowly,a nd not just over one generation, but multipleones. It's the reality of how social change occurs. I don't get into what people are assuming. I get into what they have said. he didn't say wha tyou wrote. You did.  

[ Parent ]
How is it a realistic barometer?
Again, if all things are equal, a minority is going to be less likely to get a particular job, simply as a matter of statistics.

Secondly, this is ONE job. ONE job in a population of 300 million. This is an extreme example of small sample size.

"youseem to have a lot of baggagea bout being dealing with reality. The reality is that people's attitudes change slowly,a nd not just over one generation, but multipleones. It's the reality of how social change occurs. I don't get into what people are assuming. I get into what they have said. he didn't say wha tyou wrote. You did.  "

You seem to be ignoring statistics. Statistics that show that the young are much more supportive of GLBT rights than their parents or grandparents. These statistics are not "my baggage".

He didn't say what I wrote. He also did NOT say what you wrote. That is precisely my point. You are reading things into  the article that is not there.

It looks to me that you are bringing your own personal baggage.


[ Parent ]
Just tried to have this conversation over at mydd
I agree completely. My thesis was that there needs to be a national strategy because there are regions in the country in which progress will not happen without it. Just as civil rights for African Americans stalled historically in places like the South, I expect the same to happen with gay issues. That eventually we will just hit this plateau of places that were open to  our arguments finally letting the bigotry out of the discussion so that they could actually hear the arguments. Then, there are others where there is not this long tradition of equality happening locally that I think will be much harder. I can not imagine a place like NC becoming open to equality arguments enough to ever endorse marriage without federal action.

I think this clip is positive
This is a debate between both sides on this issue - and the moderator is asking tough questions of the FRC (Witherspoon) guy.

Also, the NGLTF is investing in outreach to Spanish language stations.

What's also a good idea, is to challenge these characters to debates on the topic on their home turf.  I debated Michele Bachmann on the issue of the constitutional amendment on KKMS - Christian radio.


I agree with Rich -- but also with Pam about being too inside the enclave
It's all too easy to preach to the choir from the safe confines of areas that already have legal protections... it's quite different environment than the vast majority of GLBT people live.

That's why the Iowa decision was so important.

For all the focus on CA and Prop 8, we've got much more work to do in all the other states that have enacted anti-GLBT amendments (and adoption bans, etc.)... and frankly, I'd like to see a little less focus on the "generational shift" and the coastal enclaves and a more direct approach to confronting the realities of the rest of us.

I think there's a growing divide -- I don't want to call it schism -- among those that live inside the ghettos and those that don't. Those of us who live outside the NY, DC, SF, LA orbit are more than a little tired of being seen as an ATM for the movement.  Look at how much money flowed from outside CA to the No on 8 campaign -- and how little money (expertise and/or other resources) has come out of CA to help fight in FL, AK and elsewhere.  Usually all we get are platitudes and head-shaking about our choice of where we live.  That has to change.


Oh, sheesh
and they just leave out poor little Chicago (and we actually do have a gay ghetto, here).

This has been perhaps my biggest complaint about the GLBT movement. All of a sudden what happened with the passing of Proposition 8 in California became the national refeendum on everything "gay."

It's nice, quite frankly, that the battle has switched to the East Coast and now New York, things look a whole lot different, don't they? A Black governor in the 3rd largest state in the union supporting full marriage equality? Black State Senators doing the same? Legislatures passing marriage equality? No ballot initiatives coming up anytime soon (but we had be prepared for them when they do).


[ Parent ]
What Rich failes to understand
is that the Yes on Prop 8 ads were just as hackneyed as the NOM one, but they still worked.  it's nice to try to undermine the confidence of fence-sitting haters, which is what Rich's article does well.  but he and his readers should never be fooled into thinking that just because we think these ads are ridiculous and people already on our side are making fun of them, that the ads aren't speaking right into the brains of bigot voters with a voice they heed.  that is the worst kind of underestimation - the kind of underestimation that helps you lose crucial votes and court cases.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


One bit of good news from the column ...
As Rich reported, Mormon scion Matthew Holland quit NOM's board last week.

twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco

Thanks to Rich for linking to one of the best (so far) of the parody ads:
A BrownBow Coalition



and another great one
I've lost track of where I first saw this one (I think it was on Facebook), but it's a must-see:



[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox