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.
In an effort to defeat universal health care, conservatives are engaging in a campaign of lies that will ultimately cause more families to suffer needlessly at a most painful time. As someone who worked for years with end-of-life care issues, and spent years working in the HIV/AIDS community, I cannot let it pass.
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."
This has been in the back of my mind for a while now, so I'm just gonna go ahead and say it: If the California Supreme Court upholds proposition 8, it will signify nothing less than the death of civil rights in this country.
Think I'm wrong? Well, which of these folks do you want voting on your civil rights?
I love this -- the fundies are rebuffed by the state. The Arkansas Family Policy Council has been told by the state's Attorney General Dustin McDaniel to stay out of the case brought to challenge the ban on gays and lesbians adopting.
The council notes in its Jan. 16 request that McDaniel previously opposed the measure to ban unmarried couples living together from adopting or fostering children. The ban went into effect Jan. 1 after voters approved it in November. The council said McDaniel may not make the same arguments that supporters would in court, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported Saturday.
McDaniel's political action committee also gave $1,000 to a campaign against the measure last fall.
In addition, the council questions Gov. Mike Beebe's commitment to rebuff the lawsuit because the governor previously opposed the ban, saying it would limit the number of homes for children who need them. Beebe is a defendant in the case as the state's chief executive.
Bring out the tiny violin. An even more hilarious objection by the organization is that it spent money to get the ban passed, therefore it's owed the chance to help defend the law.
The council also argues it should be allowed to intervene because of its efforts to put the measure into writing and successfully campaign to get it on the November ballot and approved by voters. The council said the effort cost 20,600 man-hours and $92,716, and gives the group a special interest in defending the law.
I tried to bring this up during our last phone call, but the conversation went another way, as conversations are wont to do. The pressure of events moves me to return to it here, in a format that should minimize the drift. So I'll tell you again: I feel the time is coming when you will be confronted with a choice to vote for or against my civil rights. What is more, your Church or some of its members are highly likely to weigh in on the matter. The "culture wars" are heating up, and I fear we may find ourselves on opposite sides.
A précis follows, in case you haven't been keeping up with events: Here in Iowa, several same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the state's definition of civil marriage (Varnum vs. Brien). The judge who heard the case found for the plaintiffs on equal protection and due process grounds. One couple managed to get married before the judge stayed his ruling, pending the decision of the state Supreme Court. That court accepted the case and received amicus briefs from various parties (including two former female lieutenant governors and church groups on both sides); oral arguments are set for 9 December of this year. In January, Gov. Culver told a reporter the if the high court upholds the lower court's decision, he will ask the legislature to overturn the ruling by amending the state constitution-even if this means recalling a departed Assembly to gather in special session for the purpose.
Meanwhile, a similar case worked its way through the courts in California. In May, that state's highest court found for the same-sex couples, and weddings were performed starting in June. Though thousands of couples married (I've heard figures ranging from 11,000 to 18,000), opponents of gay rights sought to thwart the judiciary and put a proposition on the ballot to strip the right to marry from same-sex couples, thereby putting minority rights to a majority vote. With support from Catholic and Mormon churches among others, Proposition 8 passed by a small majority, and protests have since been held in many cities. I shall join such a protest here in Des Moines in a few hours' time.
Beyond this, I cannot give a precise timeline. In California, the high court has asked for documents in the case; there are a number a lawsuits alleging the proposition, in seeking to enact a change that conflicts with the equal protection guarantee, amounts to a revision of the document; revisions, under the terms of that constitution, must be passed by the legislature first. Here in Iowa, the high court ruling isn't expected until some time next year. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, Culver will no doubt make good his threat. An amendment to the Iowa Constitution must pass the legislature twice before going to the voters for approval; a simple majority is then sufficient to ratify it.
If you have read this far, I expect you have a cascade of objections going through your mind. Perhaps you've even given voice to one or more of them, much as I mutter "a pleasing stream of the old rancid" when I find my predecessor has left the booth radio tuned to Rush Limbaugh. I propose to address as many of your objections as I can anticipate below; feel free to raise any other objections you may have.
You may think all of this is far away, in time or in space. I grant you that California a a couple of thousand miles from here; it is also true that it will take some time to amend Iowa's constitution. Yet the foes of gay rights will not wait and bide their time. They have been castigating people like me for decades, and they will not hold their tongues while the matter is discussed in the courts. There are funds to be raised and fears to be mongered and outrage to be incited. The fear and the outrage can then be tapped for more money and for volunteer labor-yielding the email trees, the phonebanks, the books and videos, and all the efforts to drive home the notion that homosexuals are sick, evil, perverse, predatory, and generally a threat to civilization and an affront to God. Lest you think I'm indulging in hyperbole, this history is amply and continually being documented; you can easily find the sources for yourself, though I will provide you with a list if you wish. (I have to warn you: much of it is not pleasant reading.)
What is more, the problem is not so very distant. Though only a few couples have sued, there are many more right here in Iowa. Consider one of my bosses (a black woman, as it happens) and her partner. They've been together for 24 years, yet legally they are strangers to each other. If the employer of one of them extends health insurance to both, the IRS will tax the partner's benefit as if it were income. They must spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on wills and other documents because they have no recognized right to make medical decisions for each other and no right of intestate succession-and those documents so dearly bought can be challenged in court by any blood relative who can't accept their recently departed family member was gay. If they go on vacation and one of them becomes ill or injured, they are at the mercy of whatever visitation policy the local ER chooses to apply, and they must be sure to bring their raft of documents (medical powers of attorney, etc.) to justify their relationship. All of this merely scratches the surface; there are over a thousand rights, now denied to same-sex couples no matter how long they have been together, that come with civil marriage.
Notice I said civil marriage. The foes of same-sex marriage intentionally elide this point. They claim that their rights would be violated, that they would be forced to perform same-sex marriages in their churches. When they say these things, they lie. They lie. Full stop. None of the lawsuits seek to redefine religious definitions of marriage. No civil court would order that, even if it could. The mere fact that clergy have been given a civil authority ("...by the power vested in me by the state of...") does not make the marriage wholly religious, nor does it mean that the tenets of the religion override the civil law (if that were so, you could still be married to Dad). What is more, they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Mormons cannot stop Starbucks™ from selling coffee and tea because they disapprove of caffeine consumption. Orthodox Jews and Muslims cannot outlaw pork tenderloins or sausage, and kosher requirements cannot keep you from having a pepperoni pizza. In fact, they don't even get to banish such practices from public spaces.
And that's really the main point. There's a distinction between the religious sphere and the civic one, and some people, for feelings of insecurity or out of a desire for power, hate and deny that distinction. Right wingers gleefully rewrite history, claiming that "America is a Christian nation." On that basis, they think they can ignore or ride roughshod over the rights and concerns of people who follow a minority religion or no religion at all. Worse yet, their tribalistic us-versus-them worldview needs some group to be cast as outsiders to reinforce their precarious sense of identity. You and your fellow Catholics may feel comfortable allying with the Christian Dominionist crowd, but many of them, especially those in some of the Protestant groups, are hostile to Mormons and Catholics among others. (Hagee ring a bell? Google his name if not.) If the precedent set by the vote in California is allowed to stand, if one unpopular minority can have their rights stripped away by the vote of a tyrannical majority, other minorities will face a similar fate. "When they finish with us, they will find reason to come after you. And they will say that you have given them reason." (Nava and Dawidoff, Created Equal, p. 164)
? ? ? ?
I must say I'm uncertain what you believe. I've heard you object when I refer to myself as "queer," but I'm not sure if you regard the word as scatological, or if you cannot bring yourself to accept that I am not straight. Perhaps it's a bit of both.¹ When I think back to a conversation we had before I came out to you (which you may not recall) in which you likened homosexuality to alcoholism and I likened it to left-handedness, I get no further. Was your reply ("Hey!") so swift and so loud because you are left-handed? In other words, was the comparison so odious to you that you couldn't let it pass? Did you-do you now believe all the invective and vitriol that has been hurled against people like me?
I will admit here that I made the comparison intentionally, partly to try to answer those questions, partly to drive the point home, and partly because I found the comparison apt.² Yet your response, while indicating your discomfort, gave me no real clue to your specific feelings on the subject. It seemed prudent to let you make the next move, so instead of coming out to you with some dramatic announcement, I chose to wait for you to ask the question. I told myself you would ask when you were ready for the answer. Eventually you asked and I answered, but you also told me you were more disappointed that I left the Church.³ Can you really have expected me to stay in a church that regards me as "intrinsically disordered"? Did you think I would endure such inherent hostility as my "cross to bear"?
? ? ? ?
The other day on the phone you said, "But...Free will!" Where do I begin unpacking that phrase? Among your fellow Catholics, it begins to look as if free will isn't free. Actually, it looks as if the Vatican is taking a page from the conservative Protestant playbook. For several years, some Catholic clergy have advocated denying sacraments to Catholic public officials who espouse a pro-choice stand (Kerry faced this in 2004, and Biden's bishop has restated the principle). Today I read of a priest in South Carolina telling parishioners who voted for Obama that they should not seek Communion until they sought absolution for their vote. I realize not every priest is so doctrinaire, but for all I know you have been similarly admonished-or you soon will be. The Vatican tends to make a very grave pronouncement whenever gay people get their rights recognized somewhere, and the old phrases ("intrinsically disordered" and all the rest of it) get trotted out for the occasion. Does this not smack of coercion? And will they let you off with a few "Hail Marys" and a few "Our Fathers" should you fail to vote according to the Church's teachings?
In a strange way, you might one day enter my world. Should you be faced with a ballot that asks you to amend this state's constitution in the same way as the voters of California were, you will have several options. You could vote in favor or not at all without telling me (how would I know, given the secret ballot?) You could vote against it and face the prospect of bringing the decision to the confessional. No doubt the topic will arise when you meet with your fellow parishioners or when you talk to the rest of the family. Then you will face a choice: to stand up for what you believe in the face of hostility and derision, or to hide what you believe in so that you can avert the social consequences. Even if you never discuss the matter, that choice will be there, and you will have to make a decision, one way or the other.
Though all the economic punditry has been going on at length comparing our present predicament to that which Americans faced in the 1930's, the new President-Elect seems to prefer bringing up Abraham Lincoln. As it happens, I've been replaying my DVDs of Ken Burns' The Civil War (not having the wherewithal for cable), and I have tried to attend the descriptions of Lincoln in particular. The comparison may be as apt as Barack Obama supposes.
Want to blame someone for the financial mess we're in? Well, join the club and get in line. Folks on the right are hell bent on blaming blacks. And if that doesn't work, they can always blame gays for our economic downturn. (Okay, okay! I confess already. it's all my fault. I'm not sure how I did it, and I don't know what I did with the $1 trillion that's likely to be the total we're in the hole.)
One of the things I hoped for when Michelle Obama spoke at the Democratic convention, was that she would introduce people to the America that she came from, and that was the setting of her story. One of the biggest shames in the campaign - aside from the fact that political realities required this intelligent, accomplished woman to effectively bite her tongue for the last couple of months - is the lack of any honest discussion about the reality that we don't all live in the same America. It's one reality that both progressives and conservatives must grapple with between now and November, and beyond
Delivered on a night that carried the theme "One America," her speech should serve as a reminder that if we are to be America, we have to first acknowledge that what we have are three America's: yours, mine, and ours.
Some people marry for love, some for companionship, and others for status or money. Now comes another reason to get hitched: health insurance.
In a poll released today, 7% of Americans said they or someone in their household decided to marry in the last year so they could get healthcare benefits via their spouse.
"It's a small number but a powerful result, because it shows how paying for healthcare is reflected not only in family budgets but in life decisions," said Drew E. Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, which commissioned the survey as part of its regular polling on healthcare.
...What surprised researchers was that such costs had become a factor in marriage decisions. "We should have asked about divorce," said Altman, joking.
Those who cited health insurance as a factor in deciding to marry tended to have modest incomes. About 6 in 10 were in households making less than $50,000 a year, said Mollyann Brodie, who directs Kaiser's opinion research. They also were younger, with 4 in 10 between 18 and 34.
I've said before that I'm not supporting either Clinton or Obama in the Democratic primaries, and I'm still not. (Though, as the contest wears on, one campaign is seriously trying my patience.) In part, that's the differences between them, for the most part, are still not that stark to me. And when it comes to gay issues, the difference is becoming less clear in some ways.
That said, something Hillary said recently set me off. Truth be told, I probably should have included Obama in the title of the this post - given the latest news about his campaign - but it wouldn't have had the same ring to me. I also don't have as much history with Obama as I do with the Clintons.
It's official. I'm an old fart. Or, well, at least I'm not as young as I used to be. But it didn't completely gel for me until I read this article about the dearth of decent anti-war songs in today's popular music scene.
An unpopular president, an unpopular war, a restless young generation eager for change - all the elements of a mass protest culture would seem to be present in this election year.
But one thing is missing: a mass culture.
The Vietnam era produced an entire genre of anti-war and cultural protest songs, the best-known of which became anthems of the age.
Iraq and the Bush presidency have inspired lots of music in this tradition, but nothing that has gained a large popular audience or is vying to be a generational anthem.
When I started writing this series, I knew that some time would pass between posts and that—given the nature of the blogosphere—what I'm writing about here might not be news anymore and that people would have moved on. Especially after the South Carolina primary, I though perhaps the "identity issue" discussion would be, if not over, then at least muted for the duration of primary season.
Boy, was I wrong. If nothing else, Obama's South Carolina win has ratcheted up the discussion of identity in politics across the spectrum, and raised new questions and frustrations all around. But what's most surprising is the candidate's own wish to keep race out of the equation, when he can't keep religion out of the equation (which is, after all, another aspect of identity).
I suppose it was inevitable. The race for the White House is about to go full tilt boogie, and of the candidates vying for the Democratic party's nomination one is an African American man and the other is a white woman. It was only a matter of time before we were due for another discussion of "identity politics," and this time some of it has been interesting.
Now, normally I'm skeptical when I hear someone bemoaning identity politics, because usually it's a white (heterosexual, christian, etc.) male who will, by the end of his spiel, want me to set aside some "identity-based" concern of commitment of mine for the sake of the common good. David Broder's column about the gender v. race dustup between Clinton and Obama is a good example. So, for that matter, is Andrew Sullivan's brief post.
But the most interesting has been Chris Bowers' recent posts about identity politics in the wake of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire victory, because he doesn't so much complain about identity politics as attempt to come to terms with it, and begins to approach something I'm starting to think of as "identity pluralism."
I sincerely hope that Family Council Action Committee president Jerry Cox and the rest of the family values crowd plans to step up and adopt and foster all the physically and mentally challenged kids, the children of color, the abused and battered children that end up in the foster care system.
If they put half the energy into meeting the needs of kids who need a good home as they do fixating on same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex couples who are willing to take on the responsibility of providing love, affection and care, the world would be a much better place. Instead, this is what the Family Council Action Committee feels is its most important task at hand. (365gay):
A conservative social policy group launched its campaign Thursday to collect enough signatures to force a ballot measure in November to bar same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting or becoming foster parents in Arkansas. "What we are doing is, we are protecting the welfare of children,” Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council Action Committee, said at a news conference at the state Capitol. The same organization was largely responsible for the passage of an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution banning gay marriage.
The FCAC must collect about 92K signatures by July to get it on the ballot. The plan is to work through churches and other fundie organizations to round them up.
Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, a national non-profit organization dedicated to securing family equality:
"The Family Equality Council stands in unison with Arkansas Families First as they fight for the well-being of all children in their state. Extremist groups like the Family Council Action Committee are attempting to limit the number of prospective parents for children in need simply in order to push their narrow agendas and impose their values on all families. Child welfare professionals know what's best for children, not zealots, and child welfare professionals strongly oppose this ban. The Family Equality Council will support all those who oppose this mean-spirited and discriminatory ban and work to ensure that our fair-minded friends in Arkansas understand the impact this legislation could have on the children of Arkansas."
Based on what I've been reading as the primaries lay out, there's a struggle going on in the Democratic party. Actually, more than one. At least two. One is obvious to be discussed in the media; the candidates' battle to win over core constituencies of the Democratic base. Namely, African Americans, Latinos, and women.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were pitched yesterday into a struggle for the key components of the Democratic power base - women, African-American and Latino voters - as the race for the White House fans out across a national stage.
...While Obama had overwhelming support from African-American voters, Clinton was strongly backed by women and Latinos. She was also the preferred candidate of voters who see the economy as the main issue in the coming elections - a distinct plus amid deepening concerns about recession.
As Georgia voters prepare to head to the polls on Feb. 5 to take part in what's been dubbed Super Duper Tuesday, when more than 20 states hold their presidential primaries, many local gay leaders are speaking out with public endorsements.
With Hillary Clinton fresh off a crucial win in New Hampshire and Barack Obama still riding on his win in Iowa, local gay voters acknowledge they are torn between the two.
Both Democratic presidential candidates claim nearly the same stance on gay issues such as repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as well as providing legal protections for gay couples. But John Edwards, also a strong gay rights supporter, seems to have lost his footing in the race, according to University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.
A little-known group called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" together with the Northern California chapter of the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit in federal district court on Tuesday to overturn SB 777, the Student Civil Rights Act, which was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger October 12, 2007. The law, which would have gone into effect on January 11 if not for a parallel signature gathering effort to place a repeal referendum on the June 2008 primary ballot, "clarifies and reinforces existing protections currently in the state’s education code, including California’s definition of gender, which has been in place since 2000" according to its sponsor Equality California. SB 777 was written by openly gay State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who also sponsored and wrote the original bill in 1999 which had initially placed protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in California schools with AB 537, the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000.
When trustees of Palm Beach Community College reached a tie vote in August on a proposal to offer health insurance for the domestic partners of employees, the measure failed and advocates for gay professors and other employees were disappointed. Because the college only pays for employees' benefits, the proposal wouldn't have cost the college a penny, but would have opened up quality insurance at a lower cost for the partners of gay and lesbian employees.
Now - in a move that is seen as adding salt to those wounds - the college has added a new health insurance benefit for some (unmarried) household members of employees: pet health insurance. All employees were told that they would get a 5 percent discount and group rates on a health insurance plans for their pets. A range of plans are offered, covering wellness care, vaccinations, X-rays, surgery and hospitalization (although pre-existing conditions may not be covered).
"Your pet is a member of your family - his quality of life is important to you," says the promotional material from the veterinary insurance company.
Your pet is a member of your family, but your partner is not? Basically, yes.
First it was in our own back yard, now the hubby's home-state -- Michigan -- has moved to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, according to this email from The Triangle Foundation
Governor Jennifer Granholm has signed an executive directive banning discrimination in state employment based on "gender identity or expression." The directive protects nearly 50,000 state employees in Michigan's Executive branch, which encompasses 95% of all state employees.
The Directive will protect, not only transgender workers, but any state employee who faces discrimination because they do not conform to traditional gender norms in their behavior and/or appearance. This includes unfair treatment of state employees based on masculinity or femininity.
Triangle has been working for this important change since 2002.
We applaud Governor Granholm for her integrity and leadership in sending a message that discrimination will not be tolerated. With this move the Governor is setting an example for all employers that people should be judged by their ability to do the job. We can only hope that our national leaders, who are currently debating whether or not to protect transgender workers in federal law, will share our Governor's vision.
We can hope, but indications are that it's going to take a couple of decades for them to catch up to those who are actually leading on this issue.
But one thing Ol' Cap'n. I am released of you. ...No more shoutin' "Hallelujah" every time you sneeze, nor jumpin' jackass every time you whistle "Dixie." We gonna love you if you let us and laugh as we leave if you don't. We want our cut of the Constitution and we want it now! And not with no teaspoon, white folks. Throw it at us with a shovel!
~ Purlie, Purlie Victorius: A Comedy in Three Acts
The quote above is from a play I saw ages ago when I was in high school. That line has occurred to me more than once in the last couple of weeks, as I've listened to earnest activists extoll the virtues of accepting teaspoons of justice, as a remedy to shovelfuls of injustice.
In the previous post I posed a question, without realizing I'd already written an answer to that question.
Its one thing to be an incrementalist and at least be honest about that last sentence. It's quite another to declare that it is the right thing to do to ask others to continue to suffer injustice without remedy is the right thing to do, that they ought to be glad to do it, and that they are wrong for objecting to it.
...And for movements that are supposed to be about progress and equality, it's a matter of of a certain degree of concession to the opposite of both.
...Power concedes nothing without demand, indeed. But what do we concede?
What we concede on some level known. It's the a concession that might -- in the form of a presumed majority of American voters -- makes right.
