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.
What is it to come out as a transgender youth? What is it to come out as a lesbian youth? CNN's Don Lemon interviewed a couple of LGBT young women about the HRC speech by President Obamba:
As far as I can tell, Katie Hill -- speaking from Tulsa, Oklahoma -- is the only trans person that the cable news networks spoke to this past weekend regarding either the President's speech to the HRC or about coverage of the National Equality March.
She did pretty damn well. I know I'm proud of Ms. Hill in her role as a trans community spokesperson.
But seriously, could the cable news networks find no other trans people to interview than a transyouth from Tulsa? Not one from DC?
The T (transgender) of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community was nearly completely erased from the media coverage this past weekend. This is one of two posts I'll have (hopefully) have up regarding cable news coverage this past weekend.
Carter's observations may seem obvious to those of us in the coffeehouse. We've seen this racist, code-laden garbage surface during the 2008 campaign only to revive with a bigoted bang right after the inauguration. But it's significant that the former President, a man of the South (as is Joe "You Lie!" Wilson) during a time when there was enormous social race-based upheaval calls it out so bluntly. He knows most of this crap is simply dancing around calling the current President of the United States a n*gger -- and you know Wilson knows it too.
Honestly, I'm surprised these fringe birthers, teabaggers and junior-league Klan member wannabes haven't thrown down that card yet. It's on the tips of their forked tongues. (Huff Post):
"I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."
"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter told NBC in an interview. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans"
Continued Carter: "And that racism inclination still exists... It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."
UPDATE: I just want to note that the the talking heads on the left as well as the right are trying to minimize the amount of racism being tossed out there; as if it's only a handful of people doing this. James Carville was on CNN just this AM trying to downplay the bigotry. I think not. Take a look at my long list -- a sampling -- of what has transpired not just in the South but all over the country. It's not just teabaggers, it's DC insiders and pols spewing racist garbage on the air as fact.
During Take Back America 2008, I spent part of a day running around with a camera and a microphone asking people which issue was most important to them in the upcoming election. Just when I thought I was done, the camera turned to me and I was faced with the same question.
My answer came quickly and easily: health care reform. When I explained why, the argument that came out of my mouth was based more in morality than economics.
Seriously folk, how the heck did I personally become a face of this "sex change operation" distraction regarding healthcare reform?
Mr. Fischer begins his piece by saying...umm...well, you take a take a look at what he says...
Autumn Sandeen (who is biologically a male in every cell of his body despite adopting a female name) writes at Pam's House Blend that it's all hokum that sex reconstructive surgery could wind up being mandated by ObamaCare, all in an effort to contradict Matt Barber's assertion that it almost certainly will.
Hokum? Who the heck says "hokum" anymore? Jiminy Crickets, I'm being derided in the language of homespun colloquialisms!
Later in the piece, Mr. Fischer states:
Sandeen goes on unwittingly to defeat his argument in two ways by calculating the cost per American to have gender reconstructive surgery included in ObamaCare. Okay, if there's no chance it's going to be in there, why is he working so hard to convince us how cheap it will be? Sounds like he's drumming up an argument to me.
He calculates that the cost, spread out over the entire population of the U.S., would only be about $1.73 per person per year. This is a self-defeating line of reasoning. If that's all it costs, why there should be plenty of compassionate, gay-friendly Americans who would happily pony up contributions to a charitable organization created to dispense vouchers to psychologically confused Americans who want to surgically mutilate themselves.
Best for last -- the conclusion:
If any tax dollars are to be spent on transgenderism at all, they should be spent on reparative therapy, helping these tortured individuals reconcile their psychological identity with their biological identity. True compassion, after all, liberates. It does not enable.
I thought reparative therapy is supposed to change sexual orientation, and I've already been celibate since 1992. Exactly what type of therapy is recommended for changing my gender identity, and in light of Matthew 19:12's comment that one can change the shape of one's genitalia for the "sake of the kingdom of heaven"? What would be the reason Christ demand I go to reparative therapy, or for taxpayers to pay for that kind of therapy?
And, by the way, I already went to reparative therapy in the late 1970's, and it didn't cure me of having a female gender identity. My 20-years in the U.S. Navy (1980-2000) didn't cure me of having a female gender identity either. Sending me to reparative therapy at this point would be fraud, waste, and abuse related to taxpayer spending.
On a very personal level, I'm a disabled veteran who's healthcare is provided through the Department of Veteran Affairs due to service connected medical conditions. Seriously, dear blenders, how many of you believe that the healthcare reform bill that passes through Congress and is signed by President Obama is going to result in the Department of Veteran Affairs doctors performing genital reconstruction surgery on me? Does anyone actually believe that is going to happen?
I don't believe it for a minute.
Despite what the Liberty Council, Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, Roger Hedgecock and Bryan Fischer might say -- and may even actually believe, although I doubt that -- I personally cannot imagine a scenario where healthcare reform results in genital reconstruction surgery for anyone in the near future.
Apparently, conservative "Christians" believe this red herring -- this exercise in needling -- will derail healthcare reform. I guess combined with the arguments about how ObamaCare is going to fund abortions and kill old people, they think it'll work. I hope these conservative "Christians" -- those who to me appear to be doing grunt work for the Republican Party and the insurance industry -- are wrong about these distractive arguments derailing healthcare reform, but I see their arguments based on fear as gaining traction.
Too bad. The 47-million Americans who don't currently don't have healthcare insurance deserve better than this kind of issue misdirection. Those Americans who are losing their healthcare because of preexisting conditions deserve better than this. Hey, I can't help but believe we all deserve a better level of discourse on healthcare reform than these kinds of spurious arguments at the margins.
This all really would be funnier to me if healthcare reform weren't so serious an issue.
Recently, I thought I addressed pretty directly how Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality was being used as a tool of the insurance industry when he engaged in wrote about how "sex change operations" were allegedly going to be a big portion of the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan for healthcare reform. Mr. LaBarbera continued his attacks on the "Obama Tranny-Care" plan on Thursday -- still based on the drummed up worry that the healthcare reform will include some form of allowance for "sex change operations." This time, instead of going after me directly, or explaining the Peter LaBarbera plan for insuring 47-million uninsured Americans, he goes after the larger target of Rachel Maddow in his piece Maddow Stumbles on Obama-Care and Transsexual 'Sex-Change' Surgeries: Barber (this time we saved Mr. LaBarbera's red, white, and blue formatting):
Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) -- the lesbian MSNBC talker who is as "out" in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism -- takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber's statement on Obama-care and "sex-change" operations.
We understand that liberals don't want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual "sex-change" procedures as "health care." That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber's column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation's blog noted that President Obama's favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding "sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.") -- Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com
Mr. LaBarbera continues on to include a piece by his friend Matt Barber, but not before including a call to attend his Americans For Truth About Homosexuality fundraiser that's right in the middle of his piece on sex change operations. It's the "First let's hear a word from your sponsor moment...
BANQUET REMINDER: Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note "AFTAH banquet" in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it "AFTAH Banquet") to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.
Good gravy boat, so to speak. In all that commentary, no apology from Mr. LaBarbera for his previous use of defamatory language? And hey -- What does this dinner have to do with health care reform or "sex change operations"?
Certainly, I appreciate that Peter LaBarbera references an article here at Pam's House Blend when he states "liberals" are not wanting to "rationally" (see his link related to his article's rationally, anyway phrase) discuss "Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual 'sex-change' procedures as 'health care.'" Really. And when we're discussing 47-million Americans without healthcare, compared to the perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 transsexuals who annually obtain genital reconstruction surgery -- or should I more correctly say 1,170 transsexuals a year -- we're talking serious money, correct?
The Liberty Council, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, and the general public should be interested in regarding the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (also referred to as sex reassignment surgery, gender reassignment surgery, and "sex change operations"). I've linked here to two research papers by Mary Ann Horton, PhD, that goes to the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery (GRS) entitled The Incidence and Prevalence of SRS among US Residents, and The Cost of Transgender Health Benefits. A summary of the prevalence and cost of genital reconstruction surgery from the website tgender.net:
The research study was undertaken from 2001 through 2008 by Mary Ann Horton, Ph.D. The goal was to measure the frequency and cost of sex reassignment surgeries [SRS], and to use this information to project the total cost of Transgender Health Benefits for the employees of large companies. This data could be used to help employers estimate what it would cost if they chose to include coverage of THBs [Transgender Health Benefits] in their employee health benefit plans...
I took a whiff of my right arm underarm this morning, and had no idea that I was smelling what ObamaCare smells like. Or should I say, the armpit of my right "chicken wing" smells an awful much like what Taxpayer-Funded Tranny-Care would smell like, and this stinkiness is at the heart of the ObamaCare healthcare reform plan.
And on top of stinking like my armpit this morning, ObamaCare"Obama's Tranny-Care" looks an awful lot like me too...except, umm, circa 2004. Who knew? (Hey -- couldn't President Obama use a more current picture of me? I'm thinner and cuter now, thanks to Bush's "Tranny-Care" healthcare plan!)
And yet apparently, President Obama has been working diligently behind the scenes to fund genital reconstruction surgery -- apparently this was all part of his evil plan from the get-go. From Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth About Homosexuality comes an article entitled Taxpayer-Funded Tranny-Care? ObamaCare Could Mandate Free 'Sex-Change' Surgeries
Transsexual activists like Autumn Sandeen (...that's his "female" name -- adopted after leaving his traditional role as husband and father) are caught up in gender confusion. For some, this culminates in body-disfiguring operations to "change" into the opposite sex. No American should be forced to pay for these nature-rejecting procedures with his or her tax dollars. Homosexual groups like Human Rights Campaign boast of their support for taxpayer-funded "sex-change" operations in cities like San Francisco.
Folks, you don't have to be very politically sophisticated to predict that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) activists and their liberal allies are going to demand "Tranny-Care" under a federal health insurance system, in the name of "fairness" and "inclusion" - even if it's not passed initially as a "benefit." And yes, the idea of subsidizing body-disfiguring "operations" surely would be considered "queer" by the average tax-paying American. Already, trans activists are strategizing on the best ways to get taxpayers to pay for their gender-confused mutilations "sex change" procedures -- and Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual lobby groups boast of their support for same in cities like San Francisco.
-- Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com
Mr. LaBarbera then goes off on to highlight the Liberty Counsel's take on HR 3200 where the "sex change operations" are brought up as a red herring, and then he follows up with the Liberty Council piece by his friend Matt Barber (that Pam wrote about yesterday).
Seriously. Personal attacks related to when I divorced my ex-spouse seem a bit much from someone whose Republican and Christian peers include Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator John Ensign, and ex-Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. And indirectly referring to me and my trans peers by the term "tranny" when he no doubt knows the term is often used as a defamatory term? -- including in how Mr. LaBarbera has used this term as a defamatory term in this very article?
And frankly, what does any of that have to do with healthcare reform?
Let's be frank here. This discussion of my ex-spouse, my children, and sex change operations in regards to healthcare reform are red herrings. These discussion points of abortions going to be federally funded by healthcare reform (these won't be), that America's over-65 year old folk are going to have government employees at their homes demanding they make living wills (they won't), and now "sex change operations" are diversionary tactics, which are related to being obstructive with regards to healthcare reform. These opponents to healthcare reform are also being intentionally obtuse on the real issues related to the current unsustainable cost growth tied to American healthcare, insurance reform, and how 47-million Americans currently have no health insurance.
And frankly too, Mr. LaBarbera is trying to engage in the fallacious argument of needling by directing personal attacks at me and using defamatory language regarding all trans people.
What Mr. LaBarbera doesn't seem to be aware of is that I'm already on the President Bush "Tranny-Care" system. In 2002, I was declared to be a service-connected, disabled veteran. I spent years serving America in the United States Navy, and am officially listed as a Persian Gulf War veteran (although I never was involved in combat operations); I retired from the military with 20-years of service to my country in 2000. Currently, my Veterans Administration (VA) disability rating is 100%.
When I had my Gastric Bypass in February of 2008, American taxpayers paid for it. The point I'm trying to make with that is that healthcare for most trans people -- including me -- does include medical treatments related to being trans, but more importantly we have health issues of the types that the broad swath of Americans have. The shape of my peers' and my genitalia shouldn't place treatment for our basic healthcare needs out of many Americans' reach, my trans peers' reach, and my reach.
Let's keep in mind what those who are bringing up "sex change operations" don't really care that much about whether or not I personally get genital reconstruction surgery paid for by the government; what these folk really want to do is derail all healthcare reform -- and if badmouthing trans people like me is how they believe they can derail it, then they're going to badmouth trans people like me.
As one lesbain, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing.
Rep. Alcee Hastings: ...[T]he time is now to eliminate this bigoted law, once and for all.
Rachel Maddow: When you are hearing that the time isn't right, when your hearing from fellow Democrats -- even from fellow opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" --- that the time's not right for your amendment, that this ought to be delayed, that there's a more strategic way to do it -- are you also hearing that there is a White House endorsed strategy for when to get rid of it, or is it being put off indefinitely?
Rep. Alcee Hastings: Very good question. I have not heard anything other than the rhetoric. I wrote to the White House on June 22nd, and had 76 other members of Congress to join me in a letter to the president explaining what the President can do right now. And that's what I was attempting to do with the amendment -- and that's saying to the Secretary of Defense "Stop it. Just don't put anyone else out of the service." ...
So, this is a continuation of the story we've read Tuesday (July 28, 2009) and yesterday (July 29, 2009) about this story here at The Blend. And again, as an LGBT identified, disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran, I find this interview of Rep. Alcee Hastings by Rachel Maddow to be incredibly disturbing. What this says to me about the Obama Administration's to lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers, sailors, and veterans is not something I find reasonable or acceptable.
The President delivered a very good speech this evening at centennial conference of the NAACP.
Considering the NAACP event featured a 96-page program full of essential sessions on the promises and challenges facing the black community in America today failed to include anything regarding the inequality black LGBTs face within and outside the community, the President included a message about this that this audience needed to hear.
His full speech is below the fold, but I wanted to pull out this section of interest; it's the Barack Obama we saw during the campaign who dared to challenge the conservative, portion of the religious black community that has been fostering discrimination in the pews, and clearly whose pressure was felt by NAACP head Ben Jealous, an ally, when he chose in his capacity as the organization's national voice to not take any position on marriage equality.
Below is the portion of President Obama's speech. This excerpt is at 9:30 min/sec into this video.
But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.
We can only infer that his lack of inclusion of transgender in the "brothers and sisters" remark is not meant as an oversight, but the frequently used inaccurate generalization by the public that "gay" is an inclusive term; seriously, they need to work on that).
But overall, this speech is so powerful because it addresses the breadth of discrimination that has been seen in this country. All of the injustices have one thing in common -- oppression and bigotry are wrong in any context, toward any group of people.
As we know, the President is capable of delivering inspiring speeches of promise; we also know that turning those promises into policy and reality is another thing altogether. It's hard work, and we must continue to lean into the wind, the political wind that tries to wear us down, push us over and change in mid-direction to keep us off stride and take our eyes off of the prize of equality.
We will hold him to those bright, shining promises.
But make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America.
It appears that there are some efforts from Bush holdover Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ease the enforcement of DADT. But it appears the only thing they can really think of doing since the law was so specific is make a determination based on how the servicemember was outed. From RawStory:
The Pentagon boss said he discussed the issue last week with US President Barack Obama and that there also has been discussion among senior military and legal counsel about possible changes in how they apply the law, which he described as "very restrictive."
"We're talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy."
Gates added: "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."
The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is "outed" in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.
Gates offered as an example "when we're given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.
"If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?" he said.
"That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."
Here's the deal folks. I'm starting to think that Obama has a strategy that's working. By his silence on our issues (with the exception of yesterday's WH presser) he is building up the ire of our community and making us more visible, more vocal, and putting our issues in the media spotlight, and not in a negative way. Part of his strategy as I can tell is to have us make him and the Congress do their jobs.
Essentially I'm saying this. Don't scramble for the crumbs thrown to us, and instead as the Dallas Principles state, demand unequivocally full equality from our Congressmen and women and our President. This is the only way we will progress.
The Fact Sheet: Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination ended with a paragraph that left me believing that the Obama Administration was addressing the civil rights of the transgender subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community (emphasis added), but not doing it directly. The paragraph in question:
The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.
So, I was on the call this afternoon where the Office of Personal Management's director, John Berry, talked about the memorandum President Obama was going to sign prior to its signing at 5:45 PM EDT. Alex Blaze, from Bilerico, asked a question about whether transgender people -- the term gender identity and expression -- would be included in the proposed regulations. Berry's answer wasn't clear to me in his original answer, but in answering a question from John Aravosis on exactly what was changing with this memorandum, Director Berry stated:
Gender identity is a non-work-related factor, and in the guidelines [to federal agencies] we will be making that clear. [...] I made it very clear [in my answer to Alex Blaze] that gender identity will be added and made very clear in our guidelines.
So why didn't the President say "gender identity" in the fact sheet?
Below the fold is the entire fact sheet on the memorandum. Note that the words lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are not in the fact sheet. Note also in signing ceremony, the President used the abbreviation LGBT, but didn't use the words "transgender," "gender identity," or "gender identity and expression" therein either. (In fact if you're bisexual, you no doubt notice the President's reticence to you that term as well.)
Since the President has only used the term "transgendered" once previously I can document (here), and the term "gender identity" once previously I can document (here) -- and both of these times were in response to direct questions.
The President and his staff seem to me to be intentionally avoiding use of the terms "transgender" or "gender identity and expression" on camera. If you were transgender and noticed this lack of using community related terminology for your identity, what conclusion would you draw?
And hey, thinking about it, Did you see Joe Solmonese on Keith Oberman....
...speak the words in question? What words did you not hear spoken by our LGBT "leaders"? (Added note from Autumn: I missed it in the first couple of listenings, but Joe Solomese mentions "gender identity" at about the 4:28 minute point in the Keith Oberman video. It wasn't mentioned in the HRC press release of the memorandum; however, but in my mind I believe saying the words on television were probably more important then getting it in the press release. I would have preferred to have seen the phrase used in both the TV appearance and the press release though.)
Which of our LGBT civil rights groups' "leaders," or our lesbian, gay, or ally political representatives said the word "transgender," or the phrase "gender identity and expression"? Which ones spoke of the "gender identity and expression" changes to federal employment regulations that the memorandum heralds?
From the media releases from the organizations below, take a look and see 1.) who says the words "transgender" and/or "gender identity and expression" and 2.) who mentions the transgender employment protections that this memorandum is to add. I'll give you a hint -- the only time the word "transgender" is used is in the phrase "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender," and that is only used by three of the organizations' in the statements listed below. And, no one but the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) -- who's media release is linked to in the graphic near the top of this piece -- and The Task Force mention employment protections for transgender federal employees.
Frankly at this point, I don't doubt at all Director Berry's commitment to adding federal regulations regarding transgender people -- I think we're going to see specific language on "gender identity" is going come to pass. That's the good news for federal employees who may are transgender...transsexual. And, as many would guess, not mentioning gender identity and expression by our politicians (links to two politicians statements as examples -- the statements of Representatives Baldwin and Leiberman -- are found by selecting two press release graphics included within this blog article) and LGBT civil rights organizations means conservative "Christian" organizations -- such as Focus On The Family, also don't mention transgender people when discussing the impact of this memorandum. I would say this is small consolation as they will be discussing this when the new federal regulations are submitted within 90-days.
However, on the 30th of June we'll really know how serious the President is about transgender civil rights; the 30th of June is the last day that the Department of Justice can file an appeal to the DianeSchroer case. If the Department Of Justice appeals this case, then we will know that just like the Obama Administration on DOMA, what the Obama Administration says in speeches and signing ceremonies won't be followed through with "fierce advocacy" by our President and his administration.
The message I get from the words "transgender" or "gender identity and expression" not being spoken is that transgender people and issues are very secondary to lesbian and gay issues, and that it's considered dangerous politically to say the words. In my opinion, this failure to use transgender related terminology doesn't bode well for transgender people and civil rights. Who doesn't remember ENDA 2007/2008?
As for our politicians and LGBT civil rights organizations: Speak the word transgender, or the phrase gender identity and expression, when you speak of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people's civil rights. And, speak these transgender subcommunity words on television. Transgender people deserve better than the silence on our subcommunity's terminology -- on our subcommunity's issues -- that we're receiving from the Obama administration, progressive politicians, and LGBT non-profits/civil rights organizations.
Don't message transgender people out of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement -- it's just not acceptable.
I spoke briefly with Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach yesterday, and the first thing I did was tell him that as a transgender Persian Gulf War Veteran with service connected disabilities, I thanked him for his service.
To compare mine and his service, my military training over my 20-year US Navy career towards working on the Mark 15 MODs 1-4 Close-In Weapon System and the Mark-92 Mod 2 Gun And Missile Fire Control System probably cost the government less than $150 thousand; Lt. Colonel Fehrenbach's pilot training cost closer to $25 million. My highest award in the Navy was a Navy Achievement Medal; Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has been decorated for valor.
I'm a war veteran; Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is a war hero.
"I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don't ask-don't tell will be repealed."
Lt. Colonel Fehrenbach, when I asked him what his thoughts were on what National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell, he stated:
"I stand with my Commander in Chief who supports a policy of nondiscrimination. In my military experience, you're not supposed to contradict your Commander In Chief."
And yet, the National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones and Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell did comment in a way that contradicted their Commander In Chief.
Perhaps it's time for the Pentagon to set up a working group -- a working group that's visible to the general public, as well as visible to the President's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community constituents -- on exactly how to implement the President's often repeated promise to the LGBT community for repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. When I asked Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is he would want to be part of such a working group, he stated:
"I want to be part of the solution."
He stated that he'd like to work for such a working group though, as an active duty servicemember. And, that's the rub, isn't it?
Well, as a military veteran myself, I'm tired of the dancing around this issue by the Obama Administration. It's time to stop with the bullsh*t statements in contrary to the Commander In Chief's stated goal of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- We should be hearing spokespeople stating that they are working to fulfill candidate Barack Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As President Obama has told us previously, his administration is capable of multitasking.
So, this LGBT veteran is calling on the Obama Administration to immediately, and very publicly direct the Pentagon to form a working group for implementing the Commander In Chief's stated goal of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
And, if The President wants to employ active duty military personnel to be part of this working group, Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, First Lieutenant Dan Choi, and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach would probably all be helpful to the group.
Mr. President, I'm tired of being fed sh*t by your administration, and having your people try to sell us on the idea that sh*t is chocolate. To quote modify a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. from the I Have A Dream speech:
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her lesbian, gay, and bisexual citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring the sacred obligation of equality under the law, America has given lesbian, gay, and bisexual citizens -- especially lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers -- a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy.
The now thing on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is kind of a Dallas Principle kind of thing. Mr. President: multitask.
I was reading today in a private Google Group about how the US Census next year will count same-sex couples, but what it the US Census won't recognize are same-sex marriages, no will the or US Census count the children of same gender couples as being the children of a same gender couples' family units.
Which of course, got me thinking: When I fill out my US Census form next year, will the census ask me what my sex is, or will they ask me what my gender is?
In other words, I'm clear as to my gender, and I'm aware that when I go into sex segregated places, if nudity is involved I need to contemplate if my genitalia will be visible to other women as to whether I enter a space. I don't think twice about which restroom to use, but I do think twice about locker rooms.
But nudity isn't involved in filling out forms, and most forms don't allow me to identify as "transgender" or "other" when I fill these forms out -- and frankly, I'm not sure I'd actually want to select "transgender" or "other" if these were options because I see myself as female.
And, this will be true for pre-operative and non-operative transsexuals, as well as post-operative transsexuals who are born in states where transsexuals aren't allowed to change the gender marker on their drivers licenses, or modify their birth certificates to reflect their changed, physical sex: we'll have to decide, each for ourselves, which sex/gender box to select.
So, the US Census not only won't count marriages between same sex partners -- won't count the children of same sex couples as belonging to a family unit -- the census also won't gather any information about transgender or transsexual data because the form doesn't collect that kind of data.
Sen. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Act (federal anti-hate crimes law) and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. When asked if he supports transgender inclusion, Obama said, "Absolutely. The transgendered community has to be protected. I just don't have any tolerance for that sort of intolerance. And I think we need to legislate aggressively to protect them."
So will I be technically breaking the law if I identify myself as female on my census form? Will the federal government see my community and me as needing to have our gender identity protected in how we answer the form, or will the federal government be intolerant of my peers are I marking a gender that doesn't stereotypically align with our genitalia?
I don't know. I haven't asked any of my trans or trans ally activist or attorney friends what the answer is to my questions, and I guess I'm thinking about this a little early for marking the form as is -- or perhaps a little late for changing the form to reflect a choice for my trans status.
However, since someone else mentioned another issue regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) US Census information today that I read, and since my genitalia won't likely be changed before next year's census, I ended up today thinking about which gender marker box I'm going to be checking next year.
And, of course this all matters more than we might think, as everything from amount of state representation one has in congress to federal funding of programs for 10 years after this census will be tied to the US Census results.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who stopped publicly ignoring LGBT issues? Wouldn't it be nice if DOMA was repealed this year so the data collected for the US Census next year will reflect the realities of LGBT families in the data collected? Wouldn't it be nice to collect any federal data on transgender people?
Yeah, the way the Obama Administration has become less clear about what it's going to do about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, let alone when the administration is going to do whatever it's going to do about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, thinking that the administration is going to do anything about DOMA, T issues not tied directly tied to LGB issues, and what data is collected about LGBT people in the 2010 US Census is likely pipe dream thinking on my part.
There has been a lot of talk on Barack Obama's first "100 days of silence" regarding the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (and associated law). First we go back to a recent article about the changes on the White House website which first featured the wording "changing" in regards to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The White House quickly did an about face that evening and adjusted the site to say "repealing."
With two high profile discharges this month of two Asian Americans, including Army Lt. Dan Choi and Army 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao, Barack Obama can't afford to remain silent on this issue. A break in the silence came May 7th in the form of a hand written letter from the President to 2nd Lt. Sandy Tsao in which the President promised "changing" the policy as a response to a letter she wrote him back in January on the day she came out to her command.
I think it's great that President Obama has said something promising to keep his promise. However, I'm still concerned with the wording. "I'm committed to changing the policy" doesn't mean the same as repeal. And while we can all give him the benefit of the doubt on his true intentions it doesn't escape the fact that the White House website initially said "changing," the officials in the Administration are saying "I don't know," and Nancy Pelosi is saying "What we're focused on is jobs, jobs, jobs." One gets the feeling their not even on the priority radar of our elected officials other than as a pariah to generate campaign donations to all sides of the argument.
One option the President may have as explained by Pam below is an executive order suspending enforcement of the policy, which could easily be re-instated by the next President. Or the President could use his "bully pulpit" and really get out in front of his issue.
In a recent exclusive interview with me for the Blend, Aubrey Sarvis, he said his "concern is, if the president remains silent, Don't Ask Don't Tell is going to become his law... silence [will] and in fact, will okay, the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell enforcement and funding."
And the question becomes "Will the President allow this to become his law? Will he allow Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be defined by his almost deafening silence?" The right wing has started to take notice as well. This, today's missive, from The Peter.
It is interesting that the White House through its official website retained Obama’s promise to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” (thus allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces) even as it removed his pledge to repeal DOMA–one of the top goals of his homosexual activist allies.
Obama has a lot to gain and nothing to lose for standing his ground on his ORIGINAL campaign promises. This game of "change" needs to turn into something real.
To answer the question -- the president is hiding in the closet. It's a familiar diseased closet inhabited by many self-proclaimed allies, particularly non-LGBT progressives, who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's always "wait, we need more time" and "we have this or that priority" or "we need to get re-elected" as an excuse for inaction.
In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.
What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.
As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price.
When Socarides wrote me this morning linking to the piece, I replied:
We all know the man [Obama] can multitask, and the cultural and legal wind is at his back. There's no excuse to be so tentative, given the Republican opposition is in shambles, it couldn't be weaker. The anti-gay forces are so shrill that they are doing a better job for our cause than we could ever imagine. Based on his weak support, you'd think he's catering to the fear tactics of the professional Christian set (e.g. Tony Perkins and Lou Sheldon). It's time to take out the trash, and use the bully pulpit to seize the moment.
He continues:
It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.
This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.
And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew."
I think a good question to ask about the situation is where are the gays in the Obama White House? Is their presence merely tokenism -- that their existence is supposed to represent a salve to the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration? Another question -- do any of the gay White House aides and appointees have any influence on Obama? Clearly not much, based on the silence about LGBT issues.
The Obama White House could barely squeak out a tepid reaction to the Iowa ruling (and they blew it on first pass and the statement never made it to the MSM press release machine) and on marriage equality in Vermont, all it could do was issue a "no comment" to an LGBT reporter. Iowa, Vermont, and all of the recent marriage equality gains represent a time to strike while the iron is hot, and aside from a perfunctory statement supporting passage of the already-popular-with-voters hate crimes legislation, crickets are chirping.
Socarides offers some suggestions for this White House to capitalize on the current wave of successes. Read them below the fold, along with journalist Karen Ocamb's take over at Huff Post.
(I'm bringing this to the top to bring attention to the semi-quick about face being done by the White House. - promoted by Daimeon)
UPDATE : Due to bloggers and SLDN questioning the WH on why they removed the LGBT rights stuff in the first place, and now the wording surrounding DADT, they have changed the word from "changing" to "repealing." Good news? Maybe. It is yet to be seen or understood why the wording was changed originally or why the White House has yet to clarify what exactly is going on, other than a standard email they've been sending to everyone about "revamping" the site. According to the SLDN Blog, there should be more on this next week.
Aubrey Sarvis communicated with the White House last night, like others did, to understand what was going on. He also received the standard e-mailed response about the site being revamped, etc. We should have a more complete understanding of what is going on early next week. Stay tuned.
Within moments of the official transfer of power from George Bush to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009 the White House website featured a very promising list of LGBT civil rights.
Well 102 days in it appears things have changed. While the over-all list is still in tact and just summarized into one short paragraph, there's interesting wording on Don't Ask Don't Tell which indicates there's no longer full support for repeal from the President which sort of has my blood boiling, just a little.
Strengthen Anti-Discrimination Laws On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress. President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
What exactly is he saying by changing Don't Ask Don't Tell? And why on earth would he remove the strong language about developing a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy? Very troubling indeed. The Original text of the website below the fold.
I've been offline a lot so I've missed all the big news about the swine flu outbreak in Mexico and in NY. I've received the transcript of the White House press conference held today, as well as a press release from the office of Governor David Paterson. Both are below the fold.
WARREN APOLOGIZES ON LARRY KING FOR HIS SUPPORT OF ONE-MAN, ONE-WOMAN MARRIAGE
So if you want to understand why we are losing the culture war, you probably don't need to look any further than Rick Warren, he of the famously seeker-friendly model of tepid Christianity. On "Larry King Live" last night, Warren apologized for his support of Proposition 8, saying his supportive comments were only made at the very last minute and only in response to a question from a parishioner.
Proposition 8, as you recall, established the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in the California constitution. If there was ever a constitutional amendment that should have the unhesitating support of any spiritual leader who believes in the Bible and the sanctity of marriage, this was it.
But Warren did everything in his power last night to distance himself from Prop 8. Said he, "During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never - never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going."
He thus takes pride in being completely AWOL while this huge battle over the spiritual and moral fabric of our nation was taking place in his own state.
...Where are the voices of truth in the pulpits of America to stand against this rapid descent into the darkness? Where?
God help us, and God help the United States of America. We're in deeper trouble than we know.
Rick Warren seemed to be apologizing to Larry King Monday evening for supporting Proposition 8 in California. He said his supportive comments were only made at the last moment and in response to a question from someone who attends his church.
There is no social issue that is more defining for biblical Christians than that of marriage and life.
..It seemed that Pastor Warren was trying to distance himself from the marriage issue.
I have had a great deal of respect for Rick Warren and his ministry, however his statements to Larry King are very troubling.
His statements were equally troubling to the other side because they are now accusing him of lying and trying to mislead people.
I have linked to Pam's House Blend. You can read his comments, their comments and see the video of his interview with King.
How'd I miss this disgusting screed by true leader of the GOP the other day? I think the guy must be back on the Hillbilly Heroin.
CNN's Rick Sanchez couldn't hold back his contempt as Rush Limbaugh mewls that England's Prime Minister Gordon Brown's positive comments about President Obama will lead to Brown's "anal poisoning."
Sanchez: "Then you have Rush Limbaugh who doesn't like the fact that Gordon Brown was impressed with the U.S. President. Didn't like the compliment...in fact, Limbaugh was so upset about it, he made what may be one of the most disgusting comments anybody could possibly make. I mean, this is the type that would make me wash out my kid's mouth, the type that even for Rush Limbaugh seems beyond the pale. Some of you no doubt will find Limbaugh's comments offensive."
Rush: "So here is a full-fledged, committed global socialist praising the president of the United States for all of his achievements in the first 70 days -- a global socialist happy with the changes Obama has made, and 'you have changed America's relationship with the world,' which is why all of the losers that make up the protesters are breaking bank windows, but the slobbering, the slobbering - this guy, folks I'm telling you - if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it."
We all got the crude sex joke, Rushie. He is a disgusting homophobe. Why else would he make such frequent references to people having to "bend over and grab their ankles"?
The fixation of conservatives like Rush on sex acts is really troubling, I mean worthy of the couch. There is something seriously wrong with them. I mean considering how many closet cases and deviants are in the GOP's ranks, it's a motherlode for shrinks. It makes you wonder what is in the cache of El Rushbo's browser.
Gee, I think tossing your daughter out of the family home because she came out of the closet is the epitome of evil. Alan Keyes, on his blog "Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY," has a frothing-at-the-mouth post about Notre Dame's invitation to the president to speak and receive an honorary degree. The failed U.S. Senate and presidential candidate cannot believe his former rival, the "child sacrifice" advocate in the White House, will darken the door of the Catholic university.
Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. His smiley tones and non-threatening manner mask a studied commitment to the promotion of the most deadly form of evil in the world today- the cult of abortion centered on the ritual of child sacrifice. Obama has moved with impetuous determination to prove his claim to the mantle of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult. With Executive orders he has shifted the resources of the U.S. government behind the global implementation of abortion. He has declared open season on embryonic human life. He has appointed enthusiastic political and judicial acolytes of this cult of death to high positions in the Executive and Judicial branches.
Even before these actions there was no rational basis for pretending to doubt his absolute commitment to the evil of abortion for its own sake. There can be no other explanation for his opposition, while an Illinois state Senator, to the bipartisan effort in the legislature to end the heinous practice of infanticide against innocent babies- delivered in the course of an abortion attempt; wrapped in soiled linens; and left on a cart to languish without medical care or any human comfort until they died. His only real explanation for refusing to support an end to this abominable practice was the cold-blooded logic that any interference with the mother's intention to kill the child would damage so-called abortion rights.
...Barack Obama is the incarnation of what the Catholic Church identifies as the epitome of evil in the world today. What Notre Dame has done puts the stamp of Catholicity upon him, as if there is no absolute contradiction between what he advocates and represents and what can honorably be presented from platforms that benefit from the auspices of the Church. A Commencement speech represents a word spoken at the beginning of a new stage of life. In the literal sense it represents a principle for thought and action. Are we seriously to believe that some morally truthful argument can be made that justifies presenting Barack Obama in a Catholic context, as one who speaks for decent moral principle? It is sophomoric to suggest that any good thing he promises, promotes or even implements can compensate for his declared war upon the very principle of goodness, which is nowhere more clearly at stake than in the law of love that shrouds, protects and sanctifies our reverence for innocent human life. What Catholic theology makes good the rationalization that good works somehow supply the deficiency of a spirit and will that in the innocent person of the child, defile and abuse the very image of God Himself?
You can surf over to read the rest of the womb-controlling rant; the hypocrisy of his touting of pious familiy values is astounding, given what he's said and done in his own family.
Related:
sex change operations. It's the "First let's hear a word from your sponsor moment...
The President delivered a very good speech this evening at centennial conference of the NAACP. 
To answer the question -- the president is hiding in the closet. It's a familiar diseased closet inhabited by many self-proclaimed allies, particularly non-LGBT progressives, who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. It's always "wait, we need more time" and "we have this or that priority" or "we need to get re-elected" as an excuse for inaction.
