News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

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.


Winners and losers at the HRC/LOGO VisibleVote08 forum

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 00:40:25 AM EDT


[UPDATE (10:30 PM, PT): I spoke with Governor Richardson just a few moments ago to discuss his remarks at this evening's forum. See below.]


Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.

MS. ETHERIDGE:  Thank you. 


Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological? 


GOV. RICHARDSON:  It's a choice.  It's -- 


MS. ETHERIDGE:  I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.)  Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?


GOV. RICHARDSON:  Well, I -- I'm not a scientist.  It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency.  I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people.  I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand. 

Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question. 
The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership.  It's the same thing, Joe.  It's a question of going through a path that is achievable. 


Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here.  I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together. 

As I type this, the Richardson campaign is in scramble mode and plans to issue a "clarification." His deputy communications director, Katie Roberts is working the press room now. Here's the press release from the governor:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement tonight clarifying an answer to a question during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles.  The question came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality is a choice.


"I misunderstood the question.  Let me be clear- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice.  But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.  That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for.  I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."

UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.


He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."


He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."


I pressed him more than once about his refusal to answer the hypothetical question as to whether Richardson would sign a bill passed by the NM state legislature that would grant marriage equality. He repeatedly gave the same answer that he's worked hard to pass domestic partner legislation in his state, and feels that separate but equal DPs are achievable, and don't pose the threat of a legal morass, as we see occurring in NJ with civil unions.


The governor then handed the phone over to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for the NM equality movement, who worked with the governor to craft the DP bill. She said "it has been drafted to include every possible state benefit," -- acknowledging it cannot do anything about the federal benefits denied gay couples. "It will, however, immediately give our citizens hundreds of protections the currently don't have."


Richardson then came back on the line. I thanked him for his time and, clearly in frustration, he chastised the media for focusing on his "maricon" moment, said "For Christ's sake, why don't you write about my record."


Well, we have focused on the positive aspects of your record at the Blend, Governor -- diarist Miss Wild Thing wrote a passionate positive post, as a former resident of New Mexico, about your efforts on behalf of the LGBT community. It makes what happened this evening all the more perplexing.


More after the jump.

Pam Spaulding :: Winners and losers at the HRC/LOGO VisibleVote08 forum
Another release from Richardson's office, just so folks are aware of his record.
Governor Bill Richardson has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans. Since taking office, Governor Richardson has:

  1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature]
  2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature]
  3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010]
  4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature]
  5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature]
  6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.

***


Joe Solmonese came over to comment on the Richardson debacle and he plans to personally meet with him to discuss the issues. "We really have to have a conversation with Mr. Richardson,  that's the first step -- we have to clear the air."


Obama and Edwards avoided land mines, and did fairly well. Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president.


I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.

If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly.  You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well. 
An even bigger faux pas, if you can call it that, was Clinton's reassertion that it should be up to the state to decide who can marry. This is simply not acceptable, given the history of bigotry legislated at the state level.


Elizabeth Birch said this about Hillary Clinton's stance on state's rights (via the press pool/Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate):

"I am very disappointed in her analysis around the states rights issue and I intend to have a long talk with her about it because it is simply wrong.  Each time in the country when we've had to expunge great bias or prejudice, like slavery, a woman's right to vote, regulating child welfare and a myriad of other issues, what has held addressing those issues back is leaving it to the states. The Federal government has a very particular and bold role to play when there is discrimination operating at the state level and it is their job to step in, be strong, and use the Constitution to eradicate that discrimination."
Well said.


Some post forum quotes (thanks to Karen Ocamb):

Brian Graydon, head of LOGO: "This event was incredibly validating. Gays and Lesbians are a voting bloc-- 4 % or more and that can swing an election, and the candidates know that." He believes their support is a real evolution. the very fact that they all believed (the import of our vote) we were worthy was almost as moving at what they had to say."


Joe Solmonese also indicated that HRC is not likely to endorse anyone in the primaries. "They are all pretty clear on our issues and there's no clear distinction on the issues." ..."I was looking for some revelatory moments about the forum itself. My primary focus was how the candidates focus on religion and faith on the issues." He also wished that Hillary Clinton could have come for a more personal place in explaining her position on marriage equality, but she relied on policy-speak too often. "It's fine to talk about tactics and strategy but it was important to speak from the heart."


"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community. From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do.  The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."


Melissa Etheridge: I'm for all those people, they are all heading in the right direction. Obama mesmerizes me, I was under his spell. Edwards surprised me with his honesty. I'm a huge Hillary fan, but she wanted a better explanation for having been thrown under the bus. For my community I needed to ask that. She talked about sitting next to David Mixner and discussing DADT. Our hopes were so high, and I felt needed to challenge him. She hasn't endorsed anyone.


John A. Perez, a labor leader representing the Food and Commercial Workers Union, he was undecided before the forum, and now he's firmly in the Edwards camp. He had been on the stage with Richardson when he announced his candidacy, so this endorsement of Edwards is significant.


***


I do have to give a thumbs-up to HRC and LOGO for putting on a smoothly run event. The format worked out very well -- 15 minutes of concentrated time with the candidates was definitely a plus.


The questions were tough, and covered a lot of ground -- and the candidates had ample opportunity to expand on their otherwise thumbnail sketches on their views on LGBT rights. While Melissa Etheridge burned some of the precious time up on frivolous chatter that could have been used for additional questions, her earnest questions were often spot-on. In particular, she held Clinton's feet to the fire regarding her own positions as well as the policies of Bill Clinton, that have affected our community.  

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Richardson looked nervous...
and M. Etheridge was generous in her attempt to let him extricate himself. But, he either greatly botched or was sending out some sort of code to the anti-gay folks. Either way, that plus the non-answer to "what if it was a gay marriage bill rather than a civil unions" question were probably the two biggest boffs of the evening.

Alberto's Alterego?
As Secretary of the Department of Energy, in which Los Alamos, NM, is the nuclear research center, Richardson must have forgotten his W. H. Lee persecution skit in Santa Fe. Science? Richardson? He's the Alberto Gonzales of Democrats.

[ Parent ]
Richardson is on Signorile's show today!
I just received an email that Bill Richardson will be on Signorile's show today. You don't need to be a subscriber to listen. You can just sign up for a three day free pass: http://www.siriusoutq.com/

[ Parent ]
Bill

I have a lot of first hand experience with Bill Richardson.  I don't know who that guy was on stage tonight. 

He has never lied to me, always kept his word and has, as he said, appointed lots of LGBT people to his government. He made sure minority service organizations got state funding. He signed an  executive order to give DP rights to all state employees. When our rights were on the line, he had many on his staff pressuring the Dems to do the right thing.

No, this wasn't his best showing. It was disappointing.  I don't always agree with him but he has always been fair to me and I wish he had done better.

One other point, he was the only Latino I saw in that room tonight. 



only latino in the room
except alva.

but yeah, it was a heavily white room, except for the black people who the camera forgot once obama was done speaking.  where were the asians, and the people of such beautifully mixed heritage taht they get the "what are you" question?  i'm afraid that HRC probably helped solidify the "its a white org" reputation by the that audience tonight.  however, it was still an historic evening.  major congratulations to HRC and Logo for making it happen.

Lurleen on Twitter


[ Parent ]
yes
Lurleen, you are right about Alva.  But I sure wouldn;t ahve known he was there unless Hillary pointed him out.  I did see the ED of Equality California, the DNC treasurer, Alec Mapa, Phill Wilson and lori Jean.

[ Parent ]
White
I didn't see everyone in the room, but just because someone "looks white" doesn't necessarily mean they aren't mixed.  And I look white, but I'm Jewish and in many situations over the years have been reminded that there are many white people who don't consider me that.  Just as I've met white people who don't think Italian-Americans are white. 

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
That's generous
Those who were on the team to prep his staff for this event were in tears. Myself included. How could we have projected that we needed to prep for that question? 

Not that Melissa shouldn't have asked it, though it does seem random and irrelevant in light of his record...but how could we have known that he wouldn't say, "doesn't matter, all Amercicans deserve to be treated fairly by their govenrment, next"?

The whole performance was just sad. He's done more for LGBT people as the leader of the executive branch in his state than the rest of them have done put together, yet he fell apart.

I'm really disappointed.



But wait, there's more!

[ Parent ]
About Richardson

I wish he hadn't said "it's a choice". It did sound like a slip. But in the grander scheme I think this recurring litmus test question we keep asking, "do you believe gayness is a choice?" is largely irrelevant. Gay people deserve their civil rights, marriage included, no matter how orientation originiates. Of course, I know you already know this.

But since I'm not gay, I can't understand how it feels for anyone to say its a choice when its not. I heard some of Melissa's pain when she said she was created as she was and was not the chooser.

Richardson's talk about science and origins might have been better reserved for a private living room conversation. Not here.

 

Bottom line: I feel that Richardson's statement was hurtful and he needs to speak more sensitively, but I don't feel its good enough to write him off.

 

Also bearin mind he was asked about his personal beliefs on a question which really is more scientific than political. I don't think that question needs ot be asked to ascertain a candidate's support. He just needs to watch his words in front of the mike.

 

---

About the marriage equality bill question:

This was a much more relevant question. I regret that Richardson couldn't just say "yes, I'll sign that bill".

It seems that his biggest aspiration is to do "what is achievable". That's not an aspiration. Pragmatic yes, but is the American dream doing "what is acheivable" or "liberty and equality"?

Oye,  

 

 

 

 

 



[ Parent ]
Richardson was shockingly bad...

I had always been favorably disposed to Richardson before tonight, primarily due to his resume but he was atrocious tonight.

 His  response to the "is homosexuality a choice?" question was unacceptable. But he was also just simply uninformed, nervous looking, inarticulate and simply bad.

He just lost any chance to be Veep, but what others have been telling me, is that this is NOT the first Presidential candidate forum (or debate) that he has been sub-par in.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


[ Parent ]
random thoooughts
the 15 min format was fantastic.  i thought joe solmonese did an excellent job of holdning feet to the fire. 

a commenter after the forum referred to richardson as eeyore.  pretty apt description, i'd say!

with his handling of the 'choice' question, richardson showed that he does not understand how these issues play out amongst the general population.  that said, if everyone believed as he says he does that each person should be equal regardless, then whether it's choice or not wouldn't matter.  but of course all people don't start from that "all people should be equal" point of view, ad so to them it does matter.  that richardson does not realize this earns him an F.

Lurleen on Twitter


Self-immolation?
That sounds more like nailing his own tongue to an icy flagpole.  I caught part of Edwards (did ok, but played it safe), Kucinich and part of Gravel (surprisingly gracious).

Next Time I'll Be Arguing For A Trans Journalist On The Panel

What I saw in the questioners there was the ability to ask questions from very personal experiences that had wider significance.  The question to Edwards where cancer was mentioned, the question to Obama about his communications to the black community about homophobia -- those were heartfelt questions by people with credibility to ask the "right" questions. 

The lack of a transgender questioner was notable in the questions posed -- no one could ask questions with credibility about transgender issues, like transgender veterans issues, transgender inclusion in ENDA and the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act, transgender immigration issues, etc.

The forum really needed a transgender writer or journalist on the panel, such as Martin Rawlings-Fein or Christine Daniels.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


I submitted a question on trans issues
I asked if any of the candidates would appoint a T in their cabinet, and how would they handle the political fallout the act. I wanted to see they respond personally to an issue that you know they don't think about.

[ Parent ]
John Edwards - wonderful pro-trans words

He answered well on the question of "what if he had a transitioning employee?". This came out of a reference to Susan Stanton. Edwards answered well and made the connection right to a pro-ENDA platform.

I love John 

 

 

 



[ Parent ]
Sorry about the extra space

Mess up, me bad 



[ Parent ]
Next Time...

Next time I'll be arguing for HRC to a sufficient number of trans employees to internally make the case for adding a trans journalist, etc.

But, that would require HRC to hire trans people, even MTFs.

Kat



>^..^<

[ Parent ]
Typical HRC
Kat, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that to happen.  HRC may say they are GLBT inclusive but I think we all know that what they really are is a white gay male club, especially if you are a wealthy, white gay male.  Yeah, they throw a bone towards the LBT community but it doesn't happen often.  This is especially so with the T. 

Last night's forum was a joke in every sense of the word.  While all the candidates are preferable to any of the Republicans, I just don't see how anyone who identifies as GLBT could support these people.  Only two of the candidates really support us and yet they are marginalized and deemed to be crazy by the progressive community, including the GLBT community, and thus never even have a chance to get their voices heard. 

Watching Edwards, Obama and Clinton squirm in their pants last night would be comical were it not so sad and yet most people who fall in the GLBT spectrum will support them like it's progress when really what they (Kucinich and Gravel being the exception) advocate is a system of separate but equal, sort of equal anyways.  Is it better than Rudy or Mitt or any of the other nutcases on the right?  Sure, but when is the lesser of two evils really a good choice?  Never as far as I know.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?"


[ Parent ]
Hillary?

Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I thought Hillary actually did really well.  I like Obama and Edwards, but they both seemed like they were willing to readily concede anything the moderators asked, up until they inexplicably and illogically refused to support marriage.  I didn't think Hillary did as well on an issue-by-issue basis, but I still got the sense that some LGBT issues are genuine priorities, and that I know what kind of stuff she would try to get through.  I don't think any of them will push marriage, but I think Hillary's a lot more likely to put the other stuff high on her agenda.

www.coalitionofthethrilling.blogspot.com 



www.coalitionofthethrilling.blogspot.com

Hillary,,,,hummm
  If she wins the nomination, I will most likely vote for her, just because I would be voting against a republican.
There is something about her unwillingness to support the entire repeal of DOMA I don't trust about her.  And her non leading when it comes to Mathew Sheppard Act, ENDA, and other key pieces of legislation she tries to shy away from. 

  I have sad before, she will give non-answers, and did quite well tonight as she is trying to figure which way the wind is blowing.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
"Health Issues"

Is she talking about AIDS?  Is that another word that she can't say?  I didn't see the rest of her performance, so I don't want to be too critical, but Jesus the way that she dances around issues irks me.

And this may be a generational thing, but I don't see AIDS as a gay disease.  I was too young to be impacted by the panic, and I have never known anyone who, to my knowledge, had it.  I am certainly interested in finding a cure and treating PWA's with dignity, but I don't see it as a part of being gay, I see it as a part of living in the 21st century. 

Not being able to get married is a big part of being gay, and Hillary is still talking right over our heads to straight middle America on that one.



What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?

[ Parent ]
I'm not a Hillary fan, BUT

Hey. She offered us a history lesson of what happened at the time, which many of us forget and some of us were too young to even notice. She reminded us that DOMA was a cheap but necessary political tactic to get the wingers to stop talking about a Federal Constitutional Ammendment... and they could have done it if they weren't  given that little bone. Laws like DOMA are relatively easy to get rid of when the time is right. Constitutional Ammendments are damn near impossible to get rid of. It was a wise move at the time because Hawaii had a case going through their courts of two gay men wanting to get married and it looked like it would pass, making a Hawaiian vacation all that any gay couple would need to do in order to get married and FORCE their home state and the federal government to recognize it. It was an exciting time, but I doubt you remember that.

And when she was talking about Melissa Etheridge's "Health issues" I think it was breast cancer. And by the way, you probably DO know alot of people with AIDS, they just don't look so obvious anymore when they're on the right drugs. 



[ Parent ]
up until they inexplicably and illogically refused to support marriage?

You misunderstood what Obama was saying.  He did not inexplicably and illogically refuse to support marriage. 

What he said was ...

"I don't think that the Church should be making those determinations when it comes to legal rights conferred by the State. I do think that individual denominations do have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same sex couples.  My denomination, United Church of Christ does other denominations may make a different decision.  Obviously part of keeping a seperation of Church and State is also to make sure that Churches have the right to excercise their freedom of religion BUT when it comes to federal rights the over 1100 rights that are right now not being given to same-sex couples I THINK THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES I AM GOING TO FIGHT HARD TO MAKE SURE THOSE RIGHTS ARE AVAILABLE."  (audience applauses) 

He went on to say that somehow we need to disentangle the issue of the word marriage which for some people has religious conotations from the civil rights that are given to couples in terms of hospital visitation, transferring property, social security benefits, etc.  It would be up to the individual denominations as to whether they would want to recognize that as a marriage or not.  Simply find a Church that accepts you, there's plenty.  His parents got married in 1961, an interracial marriage that was not legal in some southern states this issue is not new nor the political chicanery needed to achieve equality.

I've been following Obama since he spoke at the Democratic National Convention.  He has no baggage and I believe he definately supports equal rights not only for glbt but for everyone and will keep fighting to move our country in that direction.  I don't think he's doing it just to get the votes I think he's doing it because it's who he is.

 



[ Parent ]
To All Presidential Candidates,
  Please learn and understand these three simple things. And they are part of being human, and part of being human is to feel comfortable with ones self.

  #1 When it comes to being Gay or Lesbian, it is not a choice we make in life. It is something we are born with. It is not a disease. It is not a psychological or mental illness. It is who we are.  But lets take a small adventure down the choice path for a minute, shall we.

  You are very happy and content with your loving attraction to a member of the opposite sex.  I bet the thought of being attracted to a member of the same sex never crossed your mind, did it.  But if you believe it is a choice that gay and lesbians make, take this challenge, chose to be a gay guy or a lesbian woman for a week or two. You were born heterosexual, now just change to homosexual. I bet you couldn't do it.

  Well, Gays and Lesbians find what they feel to be wrong in a society that wants to call them abominations, sick sexual perverts, sodomites, and all the rest of the terms most gays and lesbians never heard of (Peter LeBarbera can guide you to them, and tell use if you had to look some of them up as well). So we hide it (being in the closet)

  #2 If you finally get #1, you have made a great step. Now take the first thought that comes to mind when you hear homosexual. Be honest with yourself.  If you didn't think about what we do when we are intimite, you get a star.  But 99% go to the sex act between two consenting adults.  But any way, forget what happes behind closed doors, and picture us at work, on vacation, taking our kids on field trips to the museum or the zoo.  Memorials dedicated to those who lost their lives fighting for this country.  or just sitting down teaching our sons and daughter how to read, write, mathematics, you know, homework. using the library or internet to do a history paper.  Teaching them how to prepare meals, set the table, and even say grace.  And one of the most important things we teach our children, is that telling the truth means alot.  Tohave things called values, knowing the difference between right and wrong.  OMG, you see, we are human too, with goals and realities, and dreams.

  We see our children as the great future of this country, we want them to have decend, responsible, productive, and most of all, Happy lives with bright futures.

  Don't you see, that life dealt us a hand of cards to play, so we are playing and taying in the game.  My hand of cards is not the best, but as an american citizen I have my right to be at the table to play my cards. With this I will lead into #3

  #3 Being transgendered, that is a different deal all together, but some how the sex act gets tossed into the mix. No matter how long you talk to someone about being TG/TS, the thought always goes to the sex act.  Again, I will use Peter LaBarbera, as he likes to call us "sexually confused". well, he is true to a small point, but it has nothing to do with intercourse, but that is where his mind is at. You see, we are minds and hearts with the wrong body parts, and we can also hide in a closet. And a deep dark closet it can be.  Living life knowing something doesn't match causes pain the longer we live with it. not only to ourselves, but to the ones around us.

  Most try hiding their true feeling because of society's unwillingness to allow us to be who we are, so we live in fear of being our true selves, until one day we decide enough is enough, or in my case, would my family and friends rather bury a dead son, or live with a transgendered daughter, kids included, a dead dad or an alive parent, that happens to be a woman.  I can tell you my family is glad to see me still breathing. And find me a better parent now that My body matches my heart and soul.

  And with all that said, Forget the myth that all of us in the LGBT want to raise gay and lesbian kids, raise them to be unhappy with their bodies not matching heart and soul. WE want our children to be who they are, straight, gay, lesbian, trans, and not have to fear of being different. 

  And an added food for thought, we all know that it takes a hetero sexual couple to give birth to us in the LGBT, and most parents pray that their children are straight, but it always doesn't work out that way, and for those children that don't fit the norm, we are fighting for them as well.

  So you see Mr. and Mrs. Presidential Candidate, We want you to stand up strong for us now, and support equal rights, as no one know where the next LGBT baby might be born, but it would be nice for him or her to be born in an America not having to fight this battle when he or she is 12.



If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


Re: To All Presidential Candidates
Extreme Kudos Happy Cat for an eloquent post!  I couldn't agree more.  Also, even though we'd like it otherwise, I assume that "All Presidential Candidates" means mainly All Democratic Presidential Candidates.  I'm sure most of the Republican candidates have been in contact with the Peter telling him how much they agree with him. 

[ Parent ]
Rate the candidates

The biggest surprise for me was Dennis Kucinich! He was the biggest winner. He was surprisingly charismatic, and he no longer looks like a freaky space alien.

The biggest loser was Bill Richardson.

Anyway, rating the candidates' performances.

1. Hillary

2. Obama

3. Kucinish

4. Edwards

5. Gravel

6. Richardson




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Mad Professah Lectures http://madprofessah.com
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell


Kucinish
  When he has his chance to truely express himself, he does wonderful, the problem is the MSM and others never give him a chance to shine.  He has been telling how he feels for many years, nut never gets the media attention required.

  He has all the top tier following his lead on the war now, economics, trade deficit with china, and LGBT rights.

  The only sad part is the top tier are to CHICKEN SHIT to take his lead on full marriage equality. which is a winning issue.  He said it before, and so did Mike Gravel, It is about love and compasion between committed couples, not sex!

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.


[ Parent ]
Dennis
I had the pleasure of going to one of his speeches here in Louisville in 2004 and he was wonderful.  He is a true progressive and supports everything that all of us here believe in and yet he doesn't get any respect or publicity.  It's not fair that the media has annoited the "Big Three" as the only sensible choices for Democrats.  That's not how a democracy works except in America.  Finally, how could anyone not say that he was the biggest winner last night when he believes in everything that we want and believe in. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Hillary is a fraud and I just can't comprehend why anyone could possibly support her, especially on the GLBT issues. 

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?"


[ Parent ]
Just watching it now online...

I missed it earlier, but they do have individual clips of the whole thing or a set of all six clips on one page to watch at their site. Watching Obama now...

Also I noticed that you can embed their video segments in your site if you want, Pam. 



Richardson
It's one thing to say it doesn't matter whether or not it's a choice, it's quite another to state flat-out that it IS a choice and not take it back until after the debate! While I might agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a choice, scientific evidence it constantly coming in that it does have a genetic basis. We are being discriminated against because of our genetic make-up, the same way racial minorities are, and that IS an important point to make. Because there's no other group that doesn't have it's nationwide, federal civil rights, and there's no other group that it's ok to be openly bigoted about. Yet it still boils down to an issue of a few genes, just in our case, not ones that control the amount of melanin in one's skin.

Even when Richardson took it back, realizing the shit had hit the fan, notice how he still puts a caveat in there "regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it." But the science is strong bitch, we're being discriminated against for something that isn't our choice, and that's a deeply disgraceful place for our country to be in in 2007, when there's supposed to be "liberty and justice for ALL."


About John Edwards....

John Edwards said that the predisdent alone can change Don't Ask Don't Tell by Executive Order. That is not correct. As a lawyer and as a former Senator, I am surprised he doen't know this. The Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) can only be changed by Congress, just like regular laws. But if the President feels strongly, he could use the bully pulpit and include the change in something that Congress really wants, threatening veto if they cut it out before passage. Once he gets the UCMJ law changed by Congress, he can enforce equlality protections, anti-descrimination/harrassment policies, etc as Commander in Chief by kicking his generals around.

Otherwise, John Edwards was okay.



democratic electability & marriage

I still think that the democrats are missing the real issue behind their electability and gay marriage is central to it. They weasel around the marriage thing pushing for separate but equal status completely unable to defend the stance. The real issue is everyone knows that most if not all of those candidates support marital equality, but they are lying to try to appear Republican Lite.

It's not the fact that they are for or against marriage equality or anything else that determines their electability. It's the fact that they are cowardly scheming weasels unwilling to stand up for what they really believe. People can figure that out. 



Thanks Pam!
Your live-blogging and analysis of this forum are stunning.  I couldn't watch it live, but I was able to check in every so often on the Blend.  Thank you very much.

I hope I have time this weekend to watch some of the online videos.  I kind of wish Logo were rebroadcasting it at better times.  Then again, I'm so busy lately, there probably isn't a good time.

Also, Atrios's oversimplification of Richardson's "it's a choice" answer is discouraging.  Just had to get that out.  There's also a lack of comments with the thread that's typical for LGBT topics in the "progressive" blogosphere (chirping crickets anyone?).

I think I need more tea this morning.  I'm cranky.

Electricity's for light bulbs!


Richardson
consistently bumbles and fumbles in debates. He always looks exhausted, sweaty, and pissed off. I also don't think his "choice" answer was a mistake. He went with his gut reaction and when that did not fly he backpedaled like he always does.

Semantics

Melissa's question was too broad. People who understand gender issues know that orientation is not a choice - orientation is what you're born with.  BUT acting on that orientation, whether homo, hetero- or bi- IS a choice. You can be heterosexual and celibate.  So the confusion about the question was did it mean orientation only? or acting on that orientation?     Richardson is right in saying that his actions should speak louder than his words, particularly when the question was intended to trap him with ambiguity.

Same is true for the word 'marriage'  - it's loaded with all kinds of cultural baggage involving separation of church and state.  All legal marriages ARE civil unions.  Not all civil unions are church-blessed marriages.  The only things that should concern government are the rights and responsibilities conveyed by the contractual relationship.  More of the discussion should focus on making this distinction.

Just for information: I've been in a civil union for 42 years, not married in a church, and it hasn't  affected longevity or committment. We've raised three children: one now in a civil union, one in a church-blessed marriage and one currently in a domestic partnership.  

The whole point of this is what Richardson said: people should be treated equally under the law. 

 

 



The Glass is Half Full

On the other hand (or maybe in the other hand, since we're talking about a glass), it's pretty amazing that the culture has come this far this fast.  I know, it doesn't feel fast.  But back in the dispiriting DADT days, who even thought marriage and civil unions would be on the national agenda, that there'd be an evening where major candidates would sit down and discuss lgbt issues?  The irony of the marriage debate is this: civil uions, for all their flaws we see in New Jersey, have become the fallback position for politicians who know the country is freaked out by the word "marriage" in a gay context because of a wild belief  churches will be forced to perform gay weddings.  In that sense, those who are disappointing when they talk about "what's feasible now" are right.  If civil unions granted 100% of the rights marriages did--at the local and federal level--that would be significant progress and a stepping stone to marriage.

 



"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

I think

it was refreshing to have a substantial amount of time devoted to our issues.  I am so sick of the MSM's treatment of homosexuality. When we are mentioned it's always in the context of "social issues" . We are always mentioned along with abortion as  a subject that is divisive and does not impact enough people so we get no time on the national media stage. I also think the Massachusetts example should be brought up more. As the only place in the US where gay marriage is legal we can all see that MA has not burst into flames and fallen into hell. Nothing has happened. Which is why several R legislators saw the light and switched sides to block the gay marriage ban .  The candidates opposed to gay marriage should talk to them.



[ Parent ]
Beautifully put!

Yes, too often we're an "issue" or worse a "controverisal issue" whiuch blurs the fact that we're real people fighting gross inequality.

And you feel that, sometimes, when you're experiencing the opposite.  My spouse had surgery at the sterling University of Michigan medical center last January and Ann Arbor is a liberal town, the surgeon knew we were partners and we'd met with him several times.  I was treated well at every stage, pre-op, recovery, intensive care--by a whole host of hospital staff and the entire surgical team.  And I was there sometimes 10+ hours a day, so I was really immersed in the environment.  It made me happy that there was this island of sanity where being gay was a non-"issue."

 



"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

[ Parent ]
We are told it's NOT our glass

MA has had marriage equality for years, there are ZERO excuses left, the lies the Christian Reich preached against gay marriage are now proven to be all LIES!

No hetero marriage was damaged, no minister was censored, no school system crashed and burned....NONE OF THE LIES HAPPENED!

Until a candidate makes THAT case, and takes American voters by the hand to help them accept OUR human rights...then my wallet stays closed, my vote might not even get cast....for the first time in over thirty years.



What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


[ Parent ]
Richardson

No matter how many positive things Richardson may have done in New Mexico, it's hard not to be blinded by both the "maricon" incident, and, now, this bumbly-fumbly meltdown.

You know, I tell ya, if your positions are based on principle, not on political appeasement, you are much less likely to be bumbly-fumbly.  If you are guided by principle, there is no reason to be nervous.

Otherwise, I think we all need to demand a much "better explanation for having been thrown under the bus."

 



Richardson is solid and deserves full support!

(from above) "No matter how many positive things Richardson may have done in New Mexico, ...."

==========

I cannot believe the amount of bad press that Richardson is taking for his comments.

My God, I care a million times more about what he has done that some stupid and clearly trivial "maricon" comment on a brain-dead show like Imus!  

For pity's sake, eyes on the prize.  I could care less if King George "The Decider" himself signed pro-gay legislation.  I'd take real actions and results over "purity of motive" anyday and everyday!

As for the hypothetical about the New Mexico legislature sending Gov. Richardson a same-sex marriage bill, the condemnation of Richardson seems politically biased.

People who often oppose Domestic Partnership can get some additional public support to do so by claiming that it is just a slipperly slope to changing the definition of marriage.  If that is what is going on in N.M. right now, then the Govenor cannot come out and say he is for marriage, while he is pressing forward a DP bill.

From that perspective, the Govenor is truly doing the best he can. 

Why insist on all-or-nothing, marriage-or-bust, in those States that are inching toward things like DP?  Sure, it's not sufficient, but it redresses an outright discrimination and harm, and that's a good in itself.



They're politicians
running for a national office and they're going to say whatever it takes to get elected on a national level.  If they are going to LEAD and initiate changes on anything LGBT, don't expect that to happen until they get elected to a second term ... IF they do.

Pam, thanks for taking the time to follow up
with Bill.

Someone nailed this in comments: Yes, he sounded like a weasel on the marriage equality bill. That's because he bombed in yet another national forum and really, really isn't going to be Pres or VP unless a comet takes out the top three contenders. However, he might very well be able to get New Mexicans who can't marry a $25 solution for their local and state legal issues.

A little weaseling doesn't bother me under these circumstances, because the question is a hypothetical. All he could do by affirming that he's willing to sign a marriage bill is cause himself headaches with the votes he's got lined up for the DP bill. All he could gain from affirming that he's made a deal with those same votes to veto such a bill is get a headache from our side.

Might as well to ask him, If you're elected will you impose carbon taxes on flying motorcycles? as whether he'd sign a marriage equality bill for NM. The flying motorcycles may be on the horizon, I'm not an expert on that, but the marriage equality bill died fast and quiet in committee in Feb. 2007--and that's the best we've been able to do. Not gonna happen during our legislative session, which is between Iowa/NH and Super Tuesday, for reference. We'll be done with all of it by the time the Dem primary is heated up.

The choice question, let's face it, he nailed his tongue to an icy flagpole, in the words of one commentor. The local news says 'Richardson Stumbles at Gay Debate', and I'm calling my friend at the afternoon paper. See if we can get that corrected to 'Richardson Trips on Curb, Impales Self on Sprinkler and Defenestrates Self on Live TV'.

But wait, there's more!


Maybe it was all the stocky black men
in the audience that made Richardson step in it.  My partner said, after the marriage bill question, "It's obvious he doesn't want to offend the rest of the population by answering the question, but it's equally obvious he just lost our votes".  And here in California, when i turned on the debate (listed on the LOGO channel as starting at 9 p.m. they were already on Edwards when I turned it on at 9:01.  We missed all of Obama and most of Edwards.  Then after it was over, the channel simply started the debate over again at Hillary.  Wondedr what happened with the technical aspects that made this muck-up in the brodcast.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

Logo Chat with the Candidates -- Richardson

What can I say, it would appear that the poor man was suffering from Foot in Mouth syndrome...

I loved the fact that Melissa's eye's perked up early in his rhetoric, in recognition that he's just a Politician veying for the GLBT vote who lacks a great amount of sincerity... at least from how I saw it.



"How Does a Gay Man End UP "Retired" in the Lesbian Mecca of North America and alone?"

Logo Chat with the Candidates -- In General

Well, I'll have to get used to this format on things... (insert red face here)

 

I enjoyed the broadcast on the whole and it confirmed for me that Obama will be the main man for the task, probably with Edward as a running mate or Gravel (everyone's favorite Grandpa). The nut job from the Buckeye state hasn't a chance in hell of generating the kind of support he needs, far too "New Age" in his thinking and idealism; though it can be seen as an admirable thing on one level, it is not practical when it comes to cold hard politics.  I like Dennis's vision but it just ain't going to happen anytime soon... far too many "conservatives" (to put it nicely) in our world that are very much opposed and afraid of the Universalist theme he espouses.

Hillary... well, she has too much baggage and far too many from the right simply will not give her the time of day let alone the opportunity of making a genuine run BACK into the white house.  I just don't see it happening and if she were to team up with Edward or Obama the entire race will be lost (I fear).

I do believe HRC & Company need to make it very clear how none of the Republican Candidates saw value in participating in this forum.  I believe every minority group that gets "shut out" by this group need to make it a very loud "issue" just as we likewise help the world to see their ties to the "less than humanitarian" organizations.

INSPIRATIONAL MOMENTS are rare when it comes to listening to politicians speak but last night gave me two; hearing Barak's emphatic spiel about his "need" or "calling" to deal with humanitarian needs and bringing genuine equality to the citizens of this nation; and then Edward talking about the kids at the Gay & Lesbian Center in L.A... that hit me hard in that I was there and saw it long ago (in the early 80s) and to hear that such horrid things are still happening simply turned my stomach.

I loved listening to the optimism offered by Gravel and as noted in a previous post here, I laughed my butt off as Richardson repeatedly placed his foot into his mouth. But these two moments shared with us by Obama and Mr. Edwards simply proved to me that they are what it will take to make things happen next election season... THEY will be the intruments to our future.  



"How Does a Gay Man End UP "Retired" in the Lesbian Mecca of North America and alone?"

Mixed results

I ADORED Obama. Thought he was eloquent, poised and really understood these issues. Hillary was a mess--states' rights, blah blah blah. Edwards was uncomfortable, but pretty well. He's still "evolving." All the guy has to do is say, "look, I'm a straight man and can't understand anything about what GLBT folks go through. However, bigotry is bigotry and I will do my best to end it within the gay community." Kucinich and Gravel should be the candidates we support, but there is no chance in hell they will win. And Richardson was nervous and slipped up. He should not be hung over the coals, because it's obvious he misunderstood the question. That being said, I applaud them all for having the insight into coming into this debate. NONE of the Repukes accepted, even though, Rudy is supportive of gay rights.

  



The time for Hillary (& the rest) to repeal DADT is NOW!!

Even though Richardson came off very badly, the statement in the debate which troubled me the most was Hillary's pathetic attempt to explain why, if she thinks Don't Ask Dont' Tell is so horrible -- she is not willing to introduce a bill right now to repeal it immediately.

I think that all of us, including the Human Rights Campaign, should not back down on this.  The majority of Americans, including the majority of US Armed Forces members, are now in favor of repealing DADT.  Furthermore, we are, at this very moment, in potential danger due to the loss of experienced personnel, as people in vital fields, such as Arab language translators, are expelled for being gay, while the 9/11 Commission report states that a lack of Arab language translators was a major cause of the 9/11 attacks not being prevented, and creates a much greater risk of future attacks.

Hillary's claim -- that she is not introducing it now, because Bush wouldn't sign it, so she wants to wait to do it when it will be successful -- is not a credible explanation coming from an experienced politician like her.  Since the majority of Americans support the repeal, and since, if Bush vetoes a repeal, it can be used to show that he is weak on fighting terrorism -- there is no potential downside to pushing, right now for a DADT repeal.  Thus, her hesitation must be coming from some reason other than what she told us -- so she is lying to us, and all of the American people, about this vital issue -- and this is not acceptable.  This issue must be kept up, and she needs to continue to be pressed to introduce this legislation right now. 

 



Agreed.
In September the congress will be debating the Defense Authorization (budget) Bill for the next year. They should link DADT repeal right in with an ammendment that the Republicans badly want. The average Joe in the military doesn't mind serving next to his gay comrades, so why should the old farts in the congress?

[ Parent ]
I'd lighten up on Richardson
I think he got rattled and defensive about the spanish version of fag he repeated on Imus, then stumbled on the choice question. He's not our enemy, he's a clumsey fairly decent supporter of gay rights. It's not like he's G*D DAMN Santorum.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small


We don't need another retarded president

He was confused? She made it as clear and simple as she could for him, but he still blew it.

America has suffered through one retarded president, we don't need another. 



Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



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