Steph Mineart’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law

I’ve had an observation rolling around in my head for many years, but as far as I can tell, I haven’t put written it on my site yet, although I know I’ve pointed it out in email on the gayindy mailing at various times. It popped back into my head as I was thinking about SJR-7 and the testimony that will occur.
There’s a long-standing internet meme called “Godwin’s Law” (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) that says “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” In other words, in any debate, eventually one person will suggested that the argument the other is making is somehow fascist, or comparable to the Nazis.
I’d like to propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law, based on my observation of religious figures in discussions on the subject of equal rights for gay people. And if you’ll excuse me, I’d like to name it after myself:

Continue ReadingSteph Mineart’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law

bilerico’s new policy

I read with excitement this piece on Bilerico.com:

Looking at last year’s news cycle, one option had a high degree of success at influencing voters’ behavior, setting back a large segment of the conservative movement, and generally providing a modicum of entertainment value for the masses. What was it? “Outing” the hypocrite.
Think Ted Haggard or Mark Foley.
I’m sick and tired of these hypocritical Hoosier legislators who think that my sex life or relationship status is any of their business. Do I intrude on who they’re sleeping with? I didn’t, but I’m going to start now. I think we need to shame them into doing the right thing and voting against discrimination. We need to show them that unnecessary intrusion into someone else’s sex life is not only unwelcome but unwarranted unless it involves children or animals. We need to burn their hand so they won’t touch the stove again.
Consider this a call to arms gossip. (We’re gay, we can do this tastefully and without violence! *grins*) I want to know the scoop. Tell me the stories that will embarrass those conservative bigots that are backing a constitutional ban on our formalized relationships. Send me gossip about who’s a philanderer, a kink fiend, a drug addict, a porn addict, or had a divorce, an abortion or even a stay in rehab. Ask your friends and family for the dirt. Look it up on the internet. Sniff out a lead and send it my way.
tips@bilerico.com
I specifically want to learn more about the alleged blowjob one of our married legislators got caught receiving in the Statehouse parking lot. I also want to know more about the single legislator (with the biggest “gay face” in the Statehouse!) who supposedly got all of his money after a rich non-related older man died and left it all to him. Rumor has it that there’s a northern Indiana legislator who’s in the closet and a female lawmaker who allegedly had an abortion or two but still ranks as a Super Christian with the Right to Life. I’ve heard that a couple out-of-town legislators have been spotted visiting the Unicorn Club and the gay baths and that several have a fondness for blow. Do you know who they are? Will you tell me?

I wish I had something juicy to share, but unfortunately, I’m too white bread to have good dirt on anyone. But I know that gay rumors have swirled for years about various Republican legislators, and about conservative bigot Eric Miller. I’m thrilled that bilerico is actively soliciting tips, and will gleefully reprint any good dirt they come up with. So if you know something, send it their way.

Continue Readingbilerico’s new policy

On the Subject of the words “Faggot” and “Dyke”

Other that some passing linkage, I haven’t weighed in on the controversy surrounding actor Isaiah Washington and his use of the F-word twice in the last three months on the set of “Grey’s Anatomy” and at the Golden Globes. The New York Times summarizes the events. Given that there has been lots of commentary, I think I should say something.

For me, the use of the words “faggot” and “dyke” are as unacceptable as using the N word. Having been the victim of a violent hate crime in which I was repeatedly called a dyke (an event where I was threatened with death and where I honestly didn’t know if I was going to be killed) I’ve had a particularly strong reaction to the word ever since, no matter who uses it (I’m still pissed as hell at that being called that recently, and still intend for there to be some accountability for it eventually.)

There are souls out there in the universe for which the words “faggot” and “dyke” are the final words ever they heard as they were beaten and killed. For that reason alone, I don’t think the use of them should be taken lightly, and I think trying to “rehabilitate” the words diminishes the suffering of those souls.

People who use these words with malicious intent should be shunned in the same way that we ostracize and revile people who use the N word. I care about free speech too much to suggest that there are words that should never be used (I think the fact that we censor “swear” words is egregious to say the least) but I do think we can institute social consequences for bad behavior where legal ones are not appropriate.

Continue ReadingOn the Subject of the words “Faggot” and “Dyke”

Rishawn Biddle and Questions on Hate Crimes

Over on the Expresso blog, Rishawn Biddle asks this question regarding the current hate crimes legislation in the house.

3.) Can the supporters of the hate crimes penalities proposed in House Bill 1459 muster up evidence that gays are being murdered or assaulted at any higher rate than the rest of the population? More importantly, doesn’t the laws currently on the books against murder, assault and the like already assure that those committting hate crimes will spend time in prison anyway?
I attempted to reply there, but their comments don’t seem to be working, so let me cover it a bit here:

#3 – that isn’t the standard for whether a hate crimes law should go on the books. According to the domestic violence attorneys serving Casper, the answer is that we can show that gay people are being murdered and assaulted; whether the rate is higher isn’t relevant, the fact that it’s happening is.
As for the assertion that “current laws cover it” – check out this relevant passage from Chris Douglas’s “Hate Crime Legislation: A Respectful Response to Common Assertions” that I have posted here on my site…

Under Indiana law, crimes are treated differently according to their victim, their impact, and their intent. Indiana law already provides for enhanced penalties when the victim of battery is deemed to be among society’s vulnerable (under the age of 12, over the age of 65, or mentally or physically infirm) or when the battery is deemed especially injurious to public peace (battery on a police or corrections officer.). For criminal cases, federal criminal defense attorney’s help is required and you can get it from here!

Definitely click the link to Chris’ article – it’s very enlightening on this subject, and I’m glad to have it on my site.

Continue ReadingRishawn Biddle and Questions on Hate Crimes

Rally at the Indiana Statehouse to Oppose SJR-7

A while back, I wrote about SJR-7, the bill to amend the Indiana constitution to eliminate equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and I urged people to contact the legislators responsible for this atrocious piece of legislation.

Well, there’s more you can do.

Indiana Equality is organizing a rally at the State House to oppose this amendment, and to support two other pieces of legislation that help protect lgbt people – a hate crimes bill that covers sexual orientation and gender identity, and an anti-discrimination bill, both of which are being introduced this legislative session.
The rally — called the “Read the Fine Print” — will feature Candace Gingrich, sister of Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

WHAT: “Read the Fine Print!” Rally at the Statehouse
WHEN: Monday, February 19, 2007 from 1:00 pm — 2:30 pm
(Presidents Day)
WHERE: Indiana Statehouse, North Atrium, 200 W. Washington
(Enter off Ohio Street)

Enter the Statehouse using the Ohio Street entrance. Please allow extra time, as you may have to go through security. Also be aware that street parking may be hard to find. The Circle Center Mall garage is only a few blocks away and relatively inexpensive.
Note that this is on President’s Day – a day when many people already have off work — so you can attend this rally. I’ll be there. You will have the opportunity to meet with your legislators at some time during or after the rally to speak your mind if you like (see information on training below.)
You can RSVP that you will be attending at this Indiana Equality link.

ALSO…

You can get training to lobby your legislator prior to the rally, in the morning on the same day. Indiana Equality, Human Rights Campaign, and Stop The Amendment will be providing a two-hour crash course in techniques for constituents to successfully communicate with and educate their State legislators.

WHAT: Lobbying Your Legislator 101
WHEN: Monday, February 19th, 2007 from 9:30am – 11:30am
(President’s Day)
WHERE: Christ Church Cathedral, 125 Monument Circle
COST: $5 (includes training, materials, and continental
breakfast)

Reserve your spot in lobbying training.
Topics of this session will include:
Do’s and Don’ts when talking to legislators
The “Marriage” Amendment

  • Process of amending Indiana?s Constitution
  • Background on the Amendment
  • Facts, talking points, and likely objections

Hate Crimes Legislation

  • How a bill becomes law
  • Background on Hate Crimes legislation
  • Facts, talking points, and likely objections

Street parking may be hard to find. The Circle Center Mall garage is only a few blocks away and relatively inexpensive.

Continue ReadingRally at the Indiana Statehouse to Oppose SJR-7

Nigeria Outlaws Existence of Gay People

  • Post author:
  • Post category:GLBT Issues

According to Peter Tatchell at UK Gay News:

A new bill, currently being debated in the Nigerian parliament, is the most comprehensively homophobic legislation ever proposed in any country in the world.
Its extremism is rivaled only by the death penalty that exists for homosexuality in several Islamic fundamentalist states.

The bill is primarily concerned with banning same-sex marriage, but its sub-clauses go much further. They will strip lesbian and gay Nigerians of their already limited civil rights. The bill outlaws almost every expression, affirmation and celebration of gay identity and sexuality, and prohibits the provision of sympathetic advice and welfare support to lesbians and gay men. And violations will be punished with an automatic five year jail sentence.

The draconian measure will outlaw membership of a gay group, attending a gay meeting or protest, advocating gay equality, donating money to a gay organization, hosting or visiting a gay website, the publication or possession of gay safer sex advice, renting or selling a property to a gay couple, expressions of same-sex love in letters or emails, attending a same-sex marriage or blessing ceremony, screening or watching a gay movie, taking or possessing photos of a gay couple, and publishing, selling or loaning a gay book or video.

Support for this legislation is coming from the completely homophobic Anglican church in Nigeria, and there are some Anglican churches in America supporting the Anglican church there in their terrorism of gay and lesbian people.

Note that our own government has been completely silent on these blatant abuses of basic human rights.

If I were a Nigerian citizen, you can bet I would become a terrorist Freedom Fighter immediately. When in the course of human events…

Continue ReadingNigeria Outlaws Existence of Gay People

Gay Figure Skater Mark Lund Publicly Trashes Johnny Weir in Homophobic Outburst

A few days ago, in a preview of the upcoming 2007 US Figure Skating Championships, openly gay figure skater Mark Lund comments with Nancy Kerrigan and Lou Tilley, making some really strong statements about skater Johnny Weir and how he fits into gender roles.

Obviously, Mark Lund is way out of line here — whether or not Johnny is out is irrelevant to me, but his trashing Johnny Weir for Johnny’s femininity is outrageous, homophobic and disgusting. Let Johnny be who he is – we adore him; flames and all – he’s an extraordinary skater of enormous power and beauty and it’s breathtaking to watch him on the ice.

After this statements in the video, public reaction was fierce – people went to Johnny’s defense immediately, and Mark Lund found himself making this statement:

“It has unfortunately become typical that journalists and members of the media who dare to comment about a celebrity or public figure that acts outrageously often come under attack. I see I am now one of those unfortunate targets. This is in reference to remarks I made during the television show Reflections on Ice regarding the reigning U.S. Men’s Figure Skating Champion Johnny Weir.

My credentials in the sport and art of figure skating are well known, as is my orientation as an out gay man. I stand by my statement “overly out without being out” 100%. I say to Mr. Weir, “You enjoy being outspoken and a free spirit. You have said frequently that you have been brought up to speak your mind. However, you refuse to support the very community that paved the way for you.” I say to all those that believe my comments about Mr. Weir were homophobic to take a step back and realize the beliefs you are actually expressing. Mr. Weir is an individual who enjoys all the rights of the gay community without coming out to support the gay community. Now who is the hypocrite here? Most certainly not me.

With Mr. Weir posing for photos wearing heels and elaborate makeup in the pages of BlackBook magazine, I say, ‘Please don’t insult the grand drag queens of yesterday and today, unless you thank them for their tireless efforts of days past and present by acknowledging them publicly.’

My comments regarding his costuming were nothing more than what you see in the newsmagazines and on TV when journalists critique celebrities on the red carpet. I have never liked his costumes and they have become more and more elaborate in recent seasons. They do not represent the sport of figure skating that I love. Why don’t we take a look at the competitive costumes of skaters like Robin Cousins and John Curry. They understood classical elegance. Without a slight to great ballet dancers, my comment that Mr. Weir looks like a prima ballerina on the ice was meant to illustrate what I feel is his outrageous presentation of the sport and art of figure skating. I know I am not alone in my comments.

As a gay man who grew up in a small town in the 1970’s, I was able to look up to those in the sport of figure skating–gay and straight–who earned my admiration through character, dedication and sportsmanship. I am glad to say some of them are great friends of mine today.

Mr. Weir is free to wear what he wants, but he should back it up with actions. No one denies his enormous talent, but my comments were meant to reflect my feeling that he prefers drawing attention for being outrageous to drawing attention for being a great figure skater. The subject of the show on which I made my comments was a preview of the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, which is a competitive sporting event.

To Mr. Weir, and his apparent legions of fans, to quote the old scoring system, there has been no 6.0 in your collective performances.”

Mr. Lund has some serious self-reflection to engage in before calling Johnny Weir to task for not being out of the closet, frankly, because Mr. Lund’s comments were nothing short of homophobic and gender-conformity shaming, which is horribly out of bounds for someone claiming to be an an “out gay man.”

In the “real world” of figure skating that Mark Lund claims as his own, same-sex pairs and same-sex dance are not allowed, and changing partners mid-skate was a rebellious performance at a competition that got one set of skaters disqualified. Men wearing dresses are not allowed. Until recently, women wearing pants on the ice in competitions was not allowed and even now it’s heavily frowned upon.

At the Gay Games, skaters did all of these things in ways that provoked thought about the sport itself, what it means to skate and what it means to perform in roles and on the ice as a gay person. Where the fuck was Mark Lund during the Gay Games, if he’s so out of the closet and proud of his sport? I saw every second of the skating performances there; he was nowhere to be found. And the figure skating performances there were nothing short of extraordinary — world-class figure skaters in performances that bent and broke gender roles in every conceivable way, and which were truly inspiring because they couldn’t happen anywhere else.

Johnny breaks gender barriers that need to broken in every single sport – until every person, including gay and transgendered people, can find their inner athlete, be able to compete in the sports they want in the ways they want, every sport will be lacking, though the athletes in it may not know it.

Continue ReadingGay Figure Skater Mark Lund Publicly Trashes Johnny Weir in Homophobic Outburst

Anti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

As Bilerico is reporting – the massively flawed legislation to put an anti-marriage equality amendment (banning civil marriage for same-sex partners) on the ballot for voting had been re-introduced to the legislature.

Here’s the proposed bill:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

That second line — that’s the massively flawed part. The idea is not only to prevent us from getting married, but also to prevent civil unions. But the wording of this bill is so bad that it has ramifications FAR BEYOND same-sex couples, and far beyond civil unions. This is what happened in Ohio – domestic violence laws are being invalidated for heterosexual couples who are unmarried – and women are being victimized as a result, because they’re abused by their live-in boyfriends, but the police can’t prosecute because they aren’t “married.”

Read that second paragraph again, and think about it for a minute.

Now think about that in context of Stephanie and I, trying to build a life together – to protect our joint property and provide for one another as we get older. That can invalidate wills, powers of attorney, living wills, assets and trusts.

We have to spend thousands of dollars that heterosexual people don’t to protect our lives – you get it just by getting a $10 marriage license. And that second line of this bill – can throw all of it out the window.

This bill is CRAZY – and it’s going to be voted on in the legislature a second time. It’s called SJR-7 – Senate Resolution 7. You can track what’s happening to it at that link.

The Homophobic Hate-Filled Bigots Responsible

Republican Senator Brandt Hershman (Wheatfield) – the Majority Whip

These people know what that second line means – they know how harmful it can be. They’re aware that we could lose our assets and be out in the cold, and they know about the problems in Ohio – but they’re so filled with hatred they don’t care.

Please contact every single one of these utter jackholes (information at the links) and tell them that they’re not good Christians for supporting this kind of discrimination, (make sure to say SJR-7) and call them on being the evil, hate-filled bigots that they are.

Stephanie and Steph

Do it for us — aren’t we cute? Shouldn’t we get to have a life together? Don’t you love us? Let these guys know that what they’re doing hurts people you care about.

Why this should be decided by courts, not by ballot

Civil rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. That’s the key that sets America apart from other democracies – We have a Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individual from the whims of the masses.

If we let people vote on civil rights, Rosa Parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus right now. Fortunately, the wiser head of a court system were allowed to interpret the law and decide discrimination was wrong.

But if we let Indiana citizens AMEND THE CONSTITUTION just to arbitrarily discriminate against a group of people, we’ll be betraying every principle the country stands for.

Continue ReadingAnti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

A Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

A letter written by the very wise Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend (link has been deprecated) is a great help in sorting out the marriage equality issue for fair-minded people, so I’m reprinting it here in full…

Dear John Edwards,

I have read about some comments you made recently in New Hamphire about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. The article quoted you as saying:

“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”

I hope that is an accurate quote of your words.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you have not yet considered the right question and that perhaps the right question would help you find the “right answer.”
First, a preliminary question. “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”

If your answer to the preliminary question is no, then there is no need to go on.

If your answer to the preliminary question is yes, then things get a little more complicated. Here we go.

Which of the three options mentioned in your quote offers genuine equal treatment, at least potentially, to all American citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Please keep in mind that the benefits and protections of marriage come from multiple levels of government. The most numerous and significant ones come from the federal level, 1,138 of them according to the latest summary by the GAO. This document, GAO report number GAO-04-353R entitled ‘Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report’, which was released on February 24, 2004 may be obtained from the United States General Accounting Office website. It is available at the following URL. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R

Some of the benefits and protections, considerably fewer, come from the state level. Others come from the county and municipal levels as well as from the private sector.

As you know, the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits any same sex marriage from receiving the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage. If my recollection is correct, you are on record as opposing DOMA. Unfortunately, however, I think the reason you give is not a fully correct reason. As I recall, your reason has something to do with states regulating marriage. That “reason,” which seems to be the Democratic Party line, is oversimplified and misleading. While it is true that each state regulates who can get married, none of the states provide the federal benefits and protections of marriage. They cannot do so. What I’m hearing from your recent comments is that even though you oppose DOMA, you are uncertain as to whether or not gay and lesbians Americans deserve full citizenship benefits.
For the sake of my question, however, lets just assume that DOMA does not exist or has been repealed.

Which of the options you note would provide equal treatment for all US citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Civil unions cannot give access to any of the benefits and protections of civil marriage. They require a separate set to be specified. If these civil unions are at a state level, they only apply within the single state that issues them. They are not portable and provide absolutely no protection to couples crossing a state line. More significantly, they cannot provide access to the most significant and numerous set of benefits and protections at the federal level. The first example that comes to mind is the fast-tracking of citizenship in international marriages. This is something completely outside the jurisdiction of the states.

Partnership benefits have exactly the same limitations as civil unions. The difference between civil union and partnership benefits is in name only.

A civil marriage contract is the only option capable of providing access to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage from all levels.

So then, if you truly believe that all American citizens should be given equal treatment under the law, hopefully the answer you have found to be elusive in the past is now within reach. I have taken you to the end of that bridge. Only you can take the final step required to complete crossing it.

Continue ReadingA Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality