|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
33|175:175
| 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"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Sat May 02, 2009 at 17:22:37 PM EDT
|
 To answer the question -- the president is hiding in the closet. It's a familiar diseased closet inhabited by many self-proclaimed allies, particularly non-LGBT progressives, who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's always "wait, we need more time" and "we have this or that priority" or "we need to get re-elected" as an excuse for inaction.
Richard Socarides calls the president out in his WaPo op-ed today, Where's our "Fierce Advocate?" In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.
As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price. When Socarides wrote me this morning linking to the piece, I replied:
We all know the man [Obama] can multitask, and the cultural and legal wind is at his back. There's no excuse to be so tentative, given the Republican opposition is in shambles, it couldn't be weaker. The anti-gay forces are so shrill that they are doing a better job for our cause than we could ever imagine. Based on his weak support, you'd think he's catering to the fear tactics of the professional Christian set (e.g. Tony Perkins and Lou Sheldon). It's time to take out the trash, and use the bully pulpit to seize the moment.
He continues: It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew." I think a good question to ask about the situation is where are the gays in the Obama White House? Is their presence merely tokenism -- that their existence is supposed to represent a salve to the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration? Another question -- do any of the gay White House aides and appointees have any influence on Obama? Clearly not much, based on the silence about LGBT issues.
The Obama White House could barely squeak out a tepid reaction to the Iowa ruling (and they blew it on first pass and the statement never made it to the MSM press release machine) and on marriage equality in Vermont, all it could do was issue a "no comment" to an LGBT reporter. Iowa, Vermont, and all of the recent marriage equality gains represent a time to strike while the iron is hot, and aside from a perfunctory statement supporting passage of the already-popular-with-voters hate crimes legislation, crickets are chirping.
Socarides offers some suggestions for this White House to capitalize on the current wave of successes. Read them below the fold, along with journalist Karen Ocamb's take over at Huff Post. |
| Pam Spaulding :: Where's Barack Obama, the 'Fierce Advocate' for LGBT rights? |
First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.
...Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.
Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.
Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states. All of these are great ways to add to the equality momentum. As I said, the opposition party is in disarray -- what gives with the timidity?
***
Aside from Obama's weak support, we need to shame every single Blue Dog who voted against hate crimes legislation -- the party needs to call out anti-equality bigots like Heath Shuler (R-NC), whose district includes Asheville; he spit in the faces of LGBTs he represents with his no vote. Where is the Democratic Party, which put out a stellar, LGBT-positive platform in 2008, in making it clear that there's no excuse to side with the likes of Virginia Foxx an closet cases Patrick McHenry (R-NC), David Dreier (R-CA), for crying out loud, on a vote on basic equality under the law.
***
Here's a snippet from Karen Ocamb's "President Obama - Give Us an LGBT Advocate"; she quotes from Michael Lux's tome The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In American Came To Be: "[The Democrats] have been so beaten down by the conservative attack machine that they have allowed themselves to get into the habit of being cautious....Since the tumultuous change decade of the 1960s, and the ugly backlash that followed it, Democrats have often been too scared to think big about progressive change, and it has hurt them." Caution has become a habit of mind, let alone a habit of politics - something Lux argues should be smashed in favor of "bold" action and change.
And yet "equal rights," while always counted in the litany of core liberal and progressive principles and "values," always is set aside or thrown under the bus in favor of some real or imagined political expediency.
As Lux told me during an interview - "either we believe in equal rights for all - or we don't." And "we should be able to multi-task."
|
|
|
