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.
Michelangelo Signorile gets to the heart of the problem of the rationalizations of some in our community that the incremental approach, attempting to pass a version of ENDA without trans-inclusion, is misguided at best, to be charitable. The comparisons to incremental legislative gains in the black civil rights movement and the incremental steps of civil unions to marriage equality completely miss the mark.
Even though we believe marriage is the goal we herald civil union gains as an interim measure. But that doesn't wash: Whether it's marriage or civil unions it's still for all of us and not just some of us. (Or did I miss the part where some genius said, Let's pass civil unions for lesbians first and come back to the gay men later, since lesbians might be less threatening than gay men?) Incremetalism does not mean cutting out whole groups of people.
Another comparison I've seen from those who support dropping gender identity from the bill is that their action is similar to the supposedly pragmatic activists during the black civil rights movement who understood that they needed to start small and grow -- they started with employment, and then moved on to housing and public accommodations in later years. That, again, is a disingenuous comparison...African-Americans did not say, Hey, let's put forth a bill to protect all the light-skinned blacks -- those who can pass and are less threatening to whites -- and we'll come back to the blackest of the black later. And make no mistake: the trannies are the queerest of the queer; they are the ones who need protections more than anyone else.
Regarding all the high-minded pledges from various people who say we will come back for the transgendered and make sure we add them later: We have seen an unfortunate history of leaving people behind within this movement, I'm sorry to remind you. Soon after the onset of the HIV drug cocktail, for example, many middle class gay white men went back to their lives (including, among many, having unprotected sex, and fetishing it on "bareback" sites) while HIV ravages other communities in this country and much of the rest of the planet. The political will within the gay community in America to help those other communities has all but died. (Oh, and do I also need to point out that the promise to come back for the trannies was made in New York when its gay rights bill was passed? That was five years ago, and they're still waiting.)
Well said. Many of you have mentioned that last bolded point in your comments and diaries -- in many cases trans protections have not been addressed years after sexual orientation measures were passed. The old "I got mine" mindset reduces motivation to act for those groups left behind.
On his show, btw, Mike noted that the calls ran 10 to 1 in favor of leaving ENDA as is.
Anyone who regularly reads the Blend knows that I generally fall into the pragmatist camp on many issues, including marriage equality, and know full well that political strategy and policy advancement is as important as purist activism. However, as a minority within a minority within a minority (female, black, lesbian), for me this one issue is a no-brainer -- I know what it is like to be marginalized by more than one of the groups I inhabit.
To think that the decision to dump T protections is based on the fact that we should help the largest group of marginalized folks at the expense of a subset is horrible, particularly when proposed so quickly by our own -- and allies on the Hill. A trans-inclusive ENDA would have been a symbolic vote, given Bush would veto it anyway, yet Ts were sold out in a flash because, in the minds of some, the floor debate, which will be contentious at any time given the kind of tactics the religious right uses, is too frightening. Just incredible. Leadership without a spine.
***
On September 14, HRC's Joe Solmonese reiterated the organization's commitment to trans-inclusive ENDA, and it was captured on video.
"We try to walk a thin line in terms of keeping everything in play, and making sure that we move forward but always being clear that we absolutely do not support and in fact oppose any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive, and we have sent that message loud and clear to the Hill."
It's breathtaking how quickly our elected Hill allies rolled this baby over. No matter how you slice it, HRC got screwed on this one politically, particularly since they now have to fete Nancy Pelosi at the organization's national dinner next week. In the end, the real losers, of course, are our trans brothers and sisters who are watching their rights being kicked around, a political football.
After the jump, two more videos -- from the re-introduction of ENDA -- statements made by Joe Solmonese and Barney Frank.
Joe Solmonese, shot on the day ENDA was re- introduced (April 24, 2007). An excerpt:
Today, nearly 90 percent of Americans believe that gays and lesbians should have equal employment opportunities. Furthermore, a healthy majority of Americans support congressional action to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Across the board, the majority of Americans believe employment decisions should be based on a person’s qualifications and work ethic. And it goes against our most fundamental American values to fire someone based solely upon who they are.
This bill isn’t about excusing lackluster job performance. It is about giving all hardworking Americans a fair chance to get ahead without discrimination or bias.
Many of America’s top corporate leaders have already figured out that a workplace free of discrimination and bias is good for business – and good for the American workforce.
Barney Frank, on the same day, clearly before he found a reason to cut Ts out for pragmatic reasons:
"This is a protection against discrimination that has been tried in a number of states, beginning in Wisconsin more than 20 years ago, and it has worked extremely well. It has caused none of the problems that opponents inaccurately claimed it would and it has provided job protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who ask simply to be allowed do their jobs and be judged on their job performance."
John Smallwood of Equality Alabama, a repressive state where you'd think the urgency to pass even a trans-free ENDA would be popular, was outraged at the prospect of "slamming the door shut in the face of our transgender brothers and sisters," as he told me. He sent me a link to a petition effort to reinforce support for a trans-inclusive ENDA:
To Speaker Pelosi:
We are disturbed that the Congressional leadership has decided to eliminate transgender people from the latest version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). LGBT organizations and allies have been working for years to pass a bill that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees alike. The decision to split the bill into two new pieces of legislation - one for sexual orientation and another for gender identity - threatens to divide our community.
We oppose any version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that does not include both sexual orientation and gender identity. Transgender people are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups within the LGBT community. In a 2006 survey of transgender people conducted by the Transgender Law Center, 57% reported being discriminated against in employment and 60% earned less than $15,300 per year. The entire country has an interest in seeing the transgender community thrive in the national economy. Without protection against discrimination, that is nearly impossible.
We commend you on your history of service to the LGBT community. We now call upon you to remain consistent in your efforts to help the entire LGBT community. Please stay true to your commitment to an ENDA that includes both gender identity and sexual orientation.
