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.
Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
The morning of November 5th, 2008, was bittersweet. I awoke that morning, after Barack Obama's historic, with a sense of hope diminished by a nagging despair following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which attempted to snatch away the equality that that the state Supreme Court granted to same-sex couples just months ago. The Obama campaign slogan, "Yes we can," was transformed into "Yes we did," by revelers in the streets of D.C. and in other locations across the country and around the world. I couldn't honestly join in the celebration without also reminding myself that "No, we didn't."
There are two articles out that discuss Obama's current spiritual advisors in the evangelical sphere, "Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five" in the NYT, and "Obama and the New Evangelical Movement" at Change.org. Without a home church, he has turned to men who have a less-than-positive view of LGBT rights. This is significant because none represent the liberal, gay-affirming United Church of Christ, a denomination he attended in Chicago. That's not to say these men (and they are all men) are wholesale religious conservatives, the conundrum is that many are very involved in the otherwise liberal social justice front.
Right: Look at who else Rev. Kirbyjon advises besides our new president. The Rev. officiated at Jenna Bush's wedding.
The NYT's Laurie Goodstein:
All are men, two of them white and three black - including the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a graying lion of the civil rights movement. Two, the entrepreneurial dynamos Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Rev. Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, also served as occasional spiritual advisers to President George W. Bush. Another, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion.
None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically. One of them, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida, was branded a turncoat by some leaders of the Christian right when he began to speak out on the need to stop global warming.
But as a group they can hardly be characterized as part of the religious left either. Most, like Mr. Wallis, do not take traditionally liberal positions on abortion or homosexuality. What most say they share with the president is the conviction that faith is the foundation in the fight against economic inequality and social injustice.
Goodstein is quick to say that the White House refused to comment on the article.
Deb Price, of the from the Detroit News, has a column up, entitled Obama could tip appeals courts to Dems. She sees hope in potential Obama appointments to the nation's Appeals Courts, especially for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community:
...For the still-young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement, the makeup of these appeals courts is critical.
Already in the federal courts are challenges to the ban on openly gay members of the military and to part of the 1996 law prohibiting gay married couples from receiving federal benefits.
If Congress and the president expand hate-crime and workplace protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, appeals judges will play a huge role in enforcing those safeguards.
"Never underestimate the importance of having a fair judiciary at every level," says gay rights litigator Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal...
Lambda Legal wants Democrats/the Obama Administration to ask some specific questions of court appointees:
Lambda has urged the Obama team to ensure its judicial nominees respect Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas -- groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions recognizing that gays are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution -- and to quickly fill federal vacancies but not overlook qualified LGBT lawyers.
Elections matter. That were now discussing LGBT issue friendly court appointments is an example of how much the November 2008 really mattered.
Baratunde Thurston (Jack Turner of Jack & Jill Politics) was on MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue last night to talk about the outrageous racist cartoon that ran in the New York Post. The lameness of Col Allan's (editor of the NYP) defense of the cartoon is laughable, and Baratunde and Sam Stein of Huff Post discuss the effect of the history of portraying blacks as apes and the dehumanization of the imagery used. Even host David Shuster called it "despicable."
We report, you decide whether this is just a blip on the radar of post-racial America. (Colorado Springs Gazette):
President Barack Obama's picture was removed this week from a Presidents Day sign at the Peterson Air Force Base commissary after customers complained that the image did not fit the holiday commemorating the birthdays of past presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
...A cashier at the commissary who did not want her name used said pictures of past presidents, including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have accompanied the Presidents Day closure sign.
One customer, a military retiree, objected this year because of Obama's race, the cashier said.
"He said they're not going to have no black man on the window where he shops," the cashier said.
The commissary agency disputed the cashier's story, saying no past presidents have had their picture displayed with the holiday message. They said four customers had complained that Presidents Day is to honor Washington and Lincoln, not Obama, causing the agency to remove the Obama image.
This proves that Barack Obama's "marriage is between a man and a woman" position -- the default escape hatch for all of the top tier Dem presidential contenders in 2008 -- is disingenuous, (not to mention illogical since he's taught constitutional law).
The Windy City Times' publisher and executive editor Tracy Baim reports that in 1996, while running in the Illinois State Senate race (13th District), he fully supported marriage equality in his response to a survey by Outlines newspaper (the pub merged with WCT). This survey had been previously cited by the media without access to any supporting documentation. However, while going through archives for another project, Baim discovered the original survey response signed by Obama himself. It's unequivocal support:
[A]s Obama has run for higher office, from senator to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage. In a January 2004 interview I conducted with Obama at the Windy City Times' office, Obama clearly stated that lack of support for full marriage equality was a matter of strategy rather than principle, but in even more recent comments, it appears he is backing off even further, saying it is more of a religious issue, and also a "state" issue, so he favors civil unions. Both are compromises most gays do not support. First, the U.S. has a separation of church and state, and laws are in place locally and nationally that give benefits based on the very word, "marriage." Therefore, marriage as it is now defined is a government ( both state and federal ) institution that comes with specific financial and social benefits ( taxes, benefits, inheritance, immigration, custody, etc. ) . So, until government eliminates the word "marriage" from state and federal laws, it is a government issue, and that includes the federal government. Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of "civil unions," no compromise whatsoever.
As we know all too well, the whole "God is in the mix" blather when it comes to civil law makes no sense, and Barack Obama admitted as much in the 2004 interview with the WCT when he was running for the U.S. Senate. It was all about strategy and making the issue a political football, thus the reshaped position once civil unions came to the fore as a politically viable option/escape hatch for him.
Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?
Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ...
...Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
So, there's the proof, folks; when it comes down to it, supporting marriage equality is all about the polls. As long as full marriage equality isn't overwhelmingly approved by Americans, when it comes to running for federal office pols -- including Obama -- believe there's more to lose than gain if they take an honest position supporting full equality.
Jane Curtin: Well, the 1970's are in their final month, and with some thoughts on this decade and the one we're about to enter, here's Weekend Update's Social Sciences Editor Al Franken.
Al Franken: Thank you, Jane. Well, the "me" decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or "What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the 80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken. Jane?
Jane Curtin: Thank you, Al. That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Regarding, perhaps, the new Al Fraken decade:
By only 225 votes he's apparently won the Minnesota Senate seat. Wow! Talk about every vote counting!
Congratulations to Senator Franken are apparently in order.
Rachel Maddow covered the issue of Rick Warren banning "unrepentant homosexuals" from his church quite well last night. First, the passage from Saddlebacks' web site:
Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.
Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church.
Nice.
One of the other matters Rachel underscores in her commentary is that Team Obama has "uninvited" close friends of the president-elect when that person's views threatened to politically damage him. In this case it was Jeremiah Wright, when the campaign learned the pastor's inflammatory sermons were going to break loose on the internets and cause a "distraction" from Obama's announcement of his candidacy.
So apparently Wright can be given the hook when Obama's doing political risk assessment, but not Rick Warren. You can draw your own conclusions as to why it's now possible, even in light of the incredible mother lode of evidence of the extreme anti-gay views of Rick Warren, that Barack Obama doesn't feel politically inconvenienced enough to dump the Saddleback bigot.
I guess he's not willing to risk the wrath of the religious right as opposed to the LGBTs who actually worked to get him elected. You know, the same religious right that held a Values Voter Conference that prominently featured an Obama Waffles display during the campaign. Did I mention that the conference was put on by the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins, who is thrilled by the Warren invite -- and the man who paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list?
It's unlikely that you were surprised to see Obama's face on the cover. He has come to dominate the public sphere so completely that it beggars belief to recall that half the people in America had never heard of him two years ago - that even his campaign manager, at the outset, wasn't sure Obama had what it would take to win the election. He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order. Understandably, you may be thinking Obama is on the cover for these big and flashy reasons: for ushering the country across a momentous symbolic line, for infusing our democracy with a new intensity of participation, for showing the world and ourselves that our most cherished myth - the one about boundless opportunity - has plenty of juice left in it.
...The real story of Obama's year is the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments: beating the Clinton machine, organizing previously marginal voters, harnessing the new technologies of democratic engagement, shattering fundraising records, turning previously red states blue - and then waking up the day after his victory to reinvent the presidential-transition process in the face of a potentially dangerous vacuum of leadership. "We always did our best up on the high wire," says his campaign manager, David Plouffe.
Before the election, The Advocate asked me to write a letter to the Dem and GOP nominees for president. The magazine planned to feature missives from various well-known voices in the LGBT community; it was an interesting idea, since we didn't know the outcome of the election at the time. It appears in the latest issue of the magazine and it's online now.
You know, the thought of writing a letter to President-elect John McCain was so horrific that I simply couldn't get my fingers onto the keyboard to tap out anything. So I begged off until the deadline was almost upon me and was told I could submit the one for Obama since the polling was favoring the former Illinois senator. It took me a while to figure out what I was going to say to President-elect Obama at the time, but I'll leave it to you all to tell me if I hit the right note or not.
MadProfessah was in the District of Columbia for an LGBT Bloggers Summit and was able to attend two plenary sessions of the Victory Fund's International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference which amusingly enough is at the Mayflower Hotel where, as Kate Clinton put it "New York lost a Governor."
The first plenary session I attended was "What Just Happened: Analyzing 2008 and Looking Ahead”
Keynote Speaker: John Mercurio, Executive Editor, The Hotline
Moderator Kerry Eleveld, Senior Political Editor, The Advocate
Recent analyses of the 2008 general election find that overall participation increased on November 4, with a significant surge in voter participation among historically underrepresented Americans. Yet, while some lawmakers have been inspired by the recent voter turnout to propose election reforms that expand access to voting rights, others continue to focus on creating additional barriers to voting.
Watching this organization flounder during the 2008 presidential campaign has been like observing a train wreck in slow motion. No matter how the Log Cabin Republicans tried to spin it, the man its party nominated for president, John McCain, expressed open contempt for LGBT rights even as he shook hands with LCRs and called them "my friends." The party continued to cleave to the bigot demographic all the way.
You'd think a public reality check would be in order, but unfortunately, it's not the case. Patrick Sammon, who is stepping down from his post at LCR:
"We had an election that didn't turn out as we hoped, but we had a progressive, pro-gay nominee, and the tenor of the campaign was 180 degrees different than four years ago," he said. "We've unquestionably made progress in four years, and I'm proud of the work we did."
Please help me out here -- what progress has been made to moderate the party? Marriage amendments were still supported and passed. Adoption ban in Arkansas...passed. Their nominee picked Sarah Palin who is loved by the professional Christian set.
I'm sure that there is slow change occurring at the state and local level, but what is driving that isn't coming out of DC or the LCR. It's the cultural change -- more people coming out of the closet and bringing anti-LGBT discrimination out into the open so it can be debated and challenged. One thing the LCR is right about is the need to broaden the GOP.
"There is a unique opportunity for Log Cabin to play a role in the redefinition of the Republican Party," he said. "Log Cabin has a critical role to play in that discussion, by pointing to places where candidates were successful, like Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana, who won with a campaign that was conservative fiscally but not socially. That's what we hope to advocate, and we want to try to engage the party in that dialogue."
Sammon said the GOP needs to "get back to the basics" to coalesce party members in the move forward.
Bob Kabel, chair of the D.C. Republican Party and a longtime Log Cabin member agreed, saying that the "party is obviously doing a lot of self-examination."
"I think that Log Cabin can be very helpful with that examination," he said. "There are so many candidates Log Cabin has supported over the years who have been inclusive rather than exclusive, and who have had successful careers. Log Cabin needs to continue to make the case that you win by broadening the party."
I just don't see what influence the LCR has had to wrest the Republican Party from its dependence on the fundamentalist, under-educated and bigoted base that we saw emerge in public as the McCain mobs. These people do not want a big tent GOP. They are stuck in the past, in denial, and looking to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview.
The party will never draw the Independent voters if it continues down the path it did in 2008.
"I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community."
--L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon
Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.
The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
...After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.
Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.
That $1,500.00 donation to the Yes On Prop 8 campaign has essentially cost him his career; it's has cost him his ability to make a living in his chosen field.
Love or hate California's Proposition 8, one fact-based thing we can take away from the campaign is that the First Presidency (the Prophet and his two counselors) of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) told their church membership to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment." There is now precedence for the LDS' prophet to tell its members how to vote on very public, controversial issues.
So, if Mitt Romney were to become the Republican Nominee for President in 2012, could the political activism by the Mormon Church hierarchy become be an issue of higher order than the John F. Kennedy/Pope issue of 1960? I tend to think so.
The key role played by the LDS Church in passing California's gay marriage ban could have long-lasting consequences - good and bad - for the future of the nation's highest-profile Mormon politician: Mitt Romney.
The LDS effort could give Romney a crucial boost among evangelicals who wield great power in choosing the Republican presidential nominee. But it might leave the former Massachusetts governor an even tougher slog among a broader electorate.
"What the LDS Church just did in California and elsewhere, should help [Romney] because it sends a signal to evangelical Protestants that while we differ religiously, politically we are first cousins," says Charles Dunn, dean of the School of Government at Regent University, founded by evangelical leader Pat Robertson...
Further into the article though, Burr quotes University of Iowa communications professor Bruce Gronbeck, who pointed out that the LDS Church's involvement in Prop 8 Politics may...
...make some independents wary of voting for a Mormon candidate, he says, and stoke more fears of how much power the church has over its faithful members.
So if one is a conservative, evangelical Christian, are you more happy that a Mormon candidate's church is on your side of the issue on same-gender marriage, or are you more worried about how the LDS Prophet may tell an elected Mormon officeholder how to speak out and vote on other issues besides same-gender marriage?
That LDS Prophet brought the politics of the Mormon Church to the forefront this last election. Since many conservative Christian voters consider Mormonism to be a cult, I tend to believe that any Mormon presidential candidate will have a leg down due to worries about what the LDS Prophet may tell a Mormon candidate what to say and do -- the Prop 8 stand by the LDS First Presidency demonstrates it's possible.
And wow, conservatives are discussing 2012 really early, aren't they? President-elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet.
Ah yes, Daddy Dobby's wet dream: An opportunity to re-start the 'Obama Isn't Christian (Enough)' meme. From Politico:
President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.
This, of course, is in contrast to God's Obnoxious 'President':
On his first day as president-elect, following weeks of Florida recounts and court hearings, Bush went to church with his wife, Laura. They attended an invite-only prayer service on Thursday, Dec. 14, at Tarrytown United Methodist Church. About 300 people attended, including top campaign staff and visiting clergy. During the service, the Rev. Mark Craig, senior pastor at Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, told Bush, "You have been chosen by God to lead the people."
Yeh, Mark - how'd that work out for America? (I wonder if Mark is any relation to Larry. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......)
The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.
Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and scheduled a hearing for next March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.
Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.
California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
Updating my diary from just an hour ago- blink and miss the rapidly changing stories this week!
(My apologies if this has already been covered via diaries, comments or posts- boy, have we all been a busy bunch to help out Pam! Fabulous reading and info this week so far...)
President-Elect Obama's agenda for civil rights has been published by the Obama-Biden transition website Change.gov.
Excerpts of the future President's civil rights agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people:
• Combat Employment Discrimination: Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
~~
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
I sent this piece for to Pam for her edit and review prior to posting this, and it got held up a bit. And, it's was a little bit from when the HRC released the scorecard in question when I wrote this piece -- I wrote the piece about a week or two after the scorecard was released. So, lots of delays posting this for multiple reasons.
It's hard for me not to fume a bit over the latest Congressional Scorecard from the HRC. The HRC has for a number of years has identified itself as an LGBT organization, but prior to the recent November election, the political wing of the organization notably penalized seven congresspeople who voted against the final version of ENDA -- the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression language.
How the HRC penalized the seven members was that the organization lowered their ratings. If a congressperson who voted against ENDA because it didn't include gender identity and expression language, the HRC still counted it as a no vote. Since there were ten congressional votes/issues the HRC tracked for the House, that means the seven congresspeople who supported the T in LGBT more than the HRC did with ENDA received overall scores of 90% instead of 100%.
The HRC knows who the seven are -- in fact, they identified the seven multiple times in their Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress. In the cover letter for the Congressional Scorecard, HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese specifically identified the seven, and said this about the vote and the seven congresspeople:
Although not the vote we hoped for, the ENDA vote was historic. A strong bipartisan majority of 235 members of Congress sent a clear message that employment decisions should be based on job performance, not sexual orientation. In addition, seven members who are strong supporters of the LGBT community - Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Michael Michaud (D-Maine), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) - voted against the bill because they were disappointed that it did not include transgender protections.
And yet, the HRC still lowered the scores of the seven in their report for not supporting the final version of ENDA that didn't include gender identity and expression. Given as a case in point, the highlighted page included here (select the image to enlarge) shows how Rep. Rush Holt (D) was scored. Rep. Holt was marked as voting against ENDA, and marked down to a score of 90% for voting against ENDA.
Perhaps it should seem pretty strange to progressive LGBT folk that the HRC, an organization that self-identifies as an LGBT civil rights organization, penalized seven congresspeople who showed a greater commitment to fully inclusive civil rights protections than the HRC did during the same timeframe. As my friend and former HRC steering committee member Kathy Padilla characterized the report to me:
[The] HRC found a way to craft a scorecard that only penalizes Democrats who are exceptional on LGBT rights.
Solmonese also said in the cover letter of the report:
A new Congress and a new president will have the opportunity to make even greater progress. The list of unfinished business is long. We need to have a president who signs the Matthew Shepard Act into law. We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA. We need to repeal DADT. We need expanded funding in our battle against HIV/AIDS. And we need to expand benefits and protections for LGBT families.
I'm not exactly sure how the HRC is demonstrating a commitment to a fully inclusive ENDA. In my mind, the reason the HRC would mark down seven progressive congresspeople would be as a message gauged for the future: You congresspeople better vote our organizational line, or we'll hurt your standing with LGBT voters who use our scorecard as a guide to how LGBT-friendly your votes are going to be in the future.
In other words, it appears to me that the HRC is far more interested in sending a "stay in line with us" message to congresspeople than it is to actually supporting civil rights and protections for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In other words, it appears to me that the HRC appeared to want to intentionally damage the reelection prospects of seven progressive, Democratic congresspeople to make a point about keeping in line with their public policy positions -- even when the HRC's public policy positions do not treat gender identity and expression on par with sexual orientation.
So, if the HRC's goal was to send the message to Congress and LGBT people that it fully supports a fully inclusive ENDA, the HRC wouldn't have marked down the scores the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression. But, the HRC did mark these seven congresspeople down; the HRC gave us a flawed scorcard that didn't correctly score seven congresspeople's commitment to full equality.
So, should Congress pass a fully inclusive ENDA during the 111th Congress, I know I wonder whether it will be in spite of the HRC's efforts instead of with the strong efforts of the HRC. And, should a version of ENDA again reach the House Floor that doesn't have gender identity and expression language, how would the HRC score congresspeople who didn't vote for the bill because it wasn't fully inclusive in their 111th Congressional Scorecard?
The HRC's recent record -- a record which includes the Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress -- seems to indicate it very well could be a "in spite of" moment with ENDA. And, the HRC is definitely sending the message with its current scorecard that it will again score down congresspeople who don't vote for a version of ENDA that isn't fully inclusive -- if a less than fully inclusive version of ENDA is one the HRC ends up supporting for the the 111th Congress.
I've said it before, I'll say it here again, I don't believe the words that Mr. Solmonese speaks anymore. When Joe Solmonese wrote "We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA" in the cover letter for the current scorecard, I find myself not believing that he and the HRC actually plan to fully support a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress.
In my opinion, it's long past time for the HRC to apologize for it's behavior with regards to ENDA and the 110th Congress, it's long past time that the HRC's public policy people put out a statement that they will only support a fully inclusive ENDA; and it's long past time that HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese resigned -- as long as Mr. Solmonese is the executive director of the HRC, the HRC will have next to zero credibility with progressive LGBT activists. Frankly, I personally don't trust Mr. Solmonese and the HRC to work as equally hard on T issues as he does for G and L issues -- in my opinion, he and the HRC daily make a mockery of their equal sign logo due to their still ongoing ENDA related behavior.
And lastly, the HRC should immediately correct their flawed scorecard for the 110th Congress.
I'm sure I'm going to be seen as an HRC basher for posting this diary, and yet I don't think of myself as one. I have very high regard for what the HRC's CEI has done for gender variant people; I believe the HRC's foundations do tremendous work. My issues with the HRC specifically are with their political folks, and specifically with their behavior regarding public policy on LGBT-related federal legislation. I would rather have them on my side than against me, but at this point I consider the HRC to be more against me as a trans woman than for me.
[Below the fold: Rep. Tammy Baldwin comments on a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress, and a link to comments on the HRC's Allyson Robinson's interview of the HRC's Allyson Hewitt.]
This is very much related to Pam's How the well-oiled Mormon machine helped pass Prop 8. Her's was the "how" Mormons helped the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign -- this post, in part, is part of the "what" of what the Mormon leadership told their members.
~~Autumn~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We all should keep in mind exactly what the LDS First Presidency (The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Prophet Thomas S. Monson and two counselors) said regarding LDS membership participation in the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign. Remember the deceitful ads linking a No On Prop 8 vote to harming California's Children? ...
The LDS First Presidency said to support that campaign. Looking at what the LDS First Presidency said in their press release should be mandatory for LGBT Californians; The LDS Church told all their members that they should "do all [they] can" to support Prop 8. From the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day SaintsAugust 8, 2008 press release:
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about "Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families," announcing the Church's participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints' church services in California, asked that Church members "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment."
And in their October 8, 2008 press release, the LDS Church encouraged their Californian members to make phone calls on behalf of the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign:
This was not an uninvolved Church that deserves to have it's politics left unquestioned. The LDS Prophet -- their Prophet -- heavily promoted the deceitful campaign that had a "win at all costs" attitude. The LDS Church itself -- at the aboslute highest level of their Prophet -- emersed themselves into the campaign. They don't have clean hands. They should have been prepared for the backlash of having supported such a deceitful campaign that removed a segment of the California populace of fundamental civil rights.
Right: Look at who else Rev. Kirbyjon advises besides our new president. The Rev. 
