Politics

Dan Savage Takes on Mary Cheney’s Hypocrisy

Dan Savage calls out Mary Cheney’s hypocrisy on suggesting she should be allowed privacy from media scrutiny for her decision to have a baby with her lesbian partner Heather Poe:

In today’s New York Times Mary Cheney defends her decision to get her lezbo self knocked the fuck up. Like her father, Mary Cheney believes she shouldn’t have to answer for her party’s attacks on same-sex parents.

“When Heather and I decided to have a baby, I knew it wasn’t going to be the most popular decision,” Ms. Cheney said, referring to her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe. She then gestured to her middle—any bulge disguised by a boxy jacket—and asserted: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child.”

Nice try, Mary.
Yes, it’s a baby, not a prop. My kid isn’t a prop either, but that never stopped right-wingers from attacking me and my boyfriend over our decision to become parents. The fitness of same-sex couples to parent is very much part of the political debate thanks to the GOP and the Christian bigots that make up its lunatic “base.” You’re a Republican, Mary, you worked on both of your father’s campaigns, and you kept your mouth clamped shut while Karl Rove and George Bush ran around the country attacking gay people, gay parents, and our children in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. It’s a little late to declare the private choices of gays and lesbians unfit for public debate, Mary.
And so long as your party insists on making the fitness of homosexuals to marry or parent—or, hell, exist—a subject of public debate, Mary, your decision to become a parent is germane and very much fit for public discussion and debate. The GOP’s selective embrace of some pregnant dykes—only knocked-up lesbians with powerful connections will be treated with respect—is a disconnect that demands answers. From you, from your father, from your venomous mother, from the idiot president you helped elect. Is that fair? Maybe not. Want to blame someone? Go look in the mirror—and then come out swinging, Mary—for yourself, your partner, and your child.

Read the whole thing, it’s excellent.

Continue ReadingDan Savage Takes on Mary Cheney’s Hypocrisy

The importance of contacting your elected officials yourself

I’m going to emphasize my point at the very beginning of this post, rather than toward the end: If you don’t want people to speak on your behalf — to potentially agree to things you don’t agree with, or to make decisions for you — then you have to speak up yourself. If you don’t do that, you bear at least a bit of the blame if someone does something in your name that you wouldn’t do.

The only way that you can get misrepresented is if you don’t represent your own views, from your own mouth.

Why am I saying this? Well, remember back in October, just before the election, I posted a message entitled “Oh my god, Did Bauer just throw us under the bus?” in which then Indiana Minority Leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, who is now Majority leader, said this about SJR-7:

“I just think that the only way for (Republicans) not to (continue to) demagogue it is to have a redundancy. It’s too bad it has to go in the constitution, but so be it,” Bauer said. “It’s not worth the time, the trouble, to point out that it’s not a problem (in Indiana), so it’s better just to have the vote and see how it goes.”
Under GOP leadership, both chambers of the General Assembly passed a same-sex marriage amendment last year. The measure must be approved by the newly elected Legislature next year or in 2008 before it could go on the statewide ballot for approval from voters.

At the time, the statement shocked the hell living shit out of the gay community, who had expected (and been assured) that Democrats were going to continue to fight like hell against SJR-7, including not letting it get heard at all. No one could figure out why Bauer had suddenly thrown in the towel, or suggested that it was okay that gay people aren’t allowed to get married.

Lately some of the speculation about that has come out into the open in the gay community. First Ted Fleischaker, publisher of The Word, printed an editorial in this issue of his paper (PDF download), generalizing that Bauer changed his public stance on SJR-7 because some unnamed “community leaders” told him that the gay community would be okay with SJR-7 succeeding if it helped him get leverage on other issues with Republicans.
Then Gary Welsh took the issue a bit further in a recent blog post by naming the “community leader(s)” who supposedly sold us all down the river – He says it was Mark St. John – so that Bauer could throw us under a bus.

Whether or not that occurred – this much is true: the vast majority of LGBT Hoosiers not only want gay marriage, but they want SJR-7 defeated, as swiftly as possible. The idea that they’d be okay with it passing – universally and patently false.

I myself want to get married more than anything in the world, and if I had a magic wand, I would consign SJR-7 to the lowest depths of hell, along with any person who even thought for a second about supporting it.

So if this did actually happen – the gay community would indeed be justified in raining hellfire and brimstone on the heads of gay “community leaders” who agreed to such a thing. (Not that we have the time to waste energy on doing that now, since first things first – we have to defeat SJR-7.)

HOWEVER – if more people from the gay community communicated with their legislators about what they actually want, no one could get away with saying something like this, if it occurred.

To quote my mother’s favorite Longfellow poem, “Why don’t you speak for yourself, John?” We can’t let other people do this for us. Every single gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered person needs to step up, for our own sakes, and that of future generations.

Continue ReadingThe importance of contacting your elected officials yourself

My Thoughts on SJR-7

The SJR-7 legislation to amend the Indiana constitution is going to be heard in committee tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. The committee will meet in the Senate Chambers – 3rd floor of the Indiana Statehouse (200 W. Washington Street in Indianapolis).

Everyone is invited to attend – a good crowd against the legislation will make an impact, so if you can come, please do. There will be an hour of testimony against the legislation. I don’t know if I’ll have a chance to say anything, because they probably have some people lined up to speak already, but if I got a chance, here’s a rough cut of what I might say:

The average Hoosier, if they read this legislation on a ballot, is not going to understand it. They’re not going to realize how flawed the legislation is; that it doesn’t just affect gay and lesbian Hoosiers, but it also affects them. They’re not going to realize that it can invalidate the domestic violence laws that protect them (as it has in Ohio) or that it can repeal their health care benefits if they work for the government, or that it can affect their financial arrangements and their relationships with people they love.

And unfortunately, we are small minority of people. We don’t have the numbers to knock on every door and explain to every Hoosier how damaging this legislation can be not just to us, but to them.

So Hoosiers may see this on a ballot and vote for it out of ignorance.

But you’re not. You legislators know what this amendment really means. You know that it’s considered flawed, because we’ve explained it you you, and we’ve had legal scholars analyze it and tell you. We shown you what’s going on in Ohio, and we’ve testified about how it tears apart gay and lesbian families.

You can’t claim ignorance on this.

So if you vote in favor of this legislation, you’re acting with malicious intent. And we are here to be witnesses to that.
If you wrote this legislation, if you vote for it, if you support and defend it… If you engrave this flawed piece of intolerance into the Indiana Constitution, we’re here to let you know that you’re names will be engraved with it. We’ll etch your names in stone, right next to it, so your legacy will be clear.

So that five years or so from now, when it people see the devastation this causes gay families, and when the average Hoosier realizes how it affects them, too… and when people start to say, “who wrote this crappy amendment?” they’ll have a handy, permanent reference point.

And 50 years from now, when you grandchildren come back to extract this painful piece of bigotry and intolerance out of their constitution like a bad tooth (and I have faith they will, because I believe in the goodness of mankind) they will do so with a sense of shame – because they will see your names – their names – attached to this, and they will know that their parents or grandparents gave them this legacy.

Think about this. 50 or 100 years from now, no one will remember who you are, or what you voted on. They won’t know if you’re good or bad. But they’ll know you voted on for intolerance, because we’ll be standing as silent witnesses to it, and we’ll make sure they remember you for this.

Continue ReadingMy Thoughts on SJR-7

“What You People Should Do”

I’m shamelessly cribbing this post by Chris Douglas from bilerico.com, because it’s so true and bears repeating in as many places as possible — so hopefully people like RiShawn Biddle with see it.

As long as we’re contemplating the advice from the straight community about the strategy employed by various sectors of the gay community, I’ll add my own beef.
Ever since this assault on the Constitution was launched, I’ve spent time talking quietly with lobbyists, business people, public relations folks, politicians and political donors who, upon coming to understand the damage this amendment does to decent gay and lesbian citizens, begin to tell me what the gay community needs to do, describing a massive and obvious task of education.
Enough.
The glbt community ranges from 5-10% of Indiana’s population, or 1 in every 20 to 1 in every 10. When it’s all said and done, we’re still a minority, one that like other minorities in the past (black, Jewish, Asian…) has been victim to every form of stereotype, mischaracterization, denigration, or dire warning. A minority. We can do only so much alone. If members of the straight majority do not take personal responsibility to assist in this task of education, we’re sunk.
I was once witness to an outrageous racist incident in the Air Force. I didn’t say to the female black officer colleague of mine, who had been viciously harassed, “Here’s what you need to do; I’ll watch.” Instead, I said “I will do whatever you want me to do in your support.” And I chewed out my commanding officers, American to American, rank be damned. I was angered by a clear miscarriage of justice… one that had nothing to do with me…. but one that required my acquiescence as an observer. Nothing doing. The cadet codes include the words: “We will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.” Standing up to such actions was and remains a matter of honor in itself.
Those who are not in our minority, but who disagree with this assault have an obligation not merely to disagree, but to speak up… not merely to advise, but to assist. We cannot preserve our constitutional standing as free citizens all by ourselves. We need you to speak up, too. Not only as a matter of the defense of the Constitution and American freedom, for which we are all asking young men and women abroad to die, but as a matter of American honor, you must speak up, whatever the discomfort you may feel.

Continue Reading“What You People Should Do”

Retrofitting with Square Wheels

One of my favorite writers, Ian Williams, has this to say in a recent blog post:

There are three issues, for me, that bear specific importance to the survival of my family: drastically reducing our carbon output, jumpstarting research on stem cells, and securing ALL loose nuclear materials in the world. If we make headway on those things in my lifetime, I will consider this era to be largely successful.
Yet all three have ticking clocks. It is only a matter of time before some very bad people get their hands on weapons-grade nuclear material. We only have a decade – at most – to stop a potential environmental holocaust. And I would like to unlock the stem cell secrets before any one of us, currently healthy reading this blog, starts to get Alzheimers, Parkinsons, or has a spinal injury.
That’s three clocks. One ticks down to an American city flattened into glass, one ticks down to you not remembering your own children, and one ticks down to billions dead because of a little change in the weather. I’m not being histrionic or even cavalier. It took me a lot of Celexa, therapy and a healthy dose of nihilism to come to grips with it. They all loom, but all come with a saving grace: THEY ALL CAN BE PREVENTED IF WE ACT IN TIME.
Let’s leave aside the nuclear material problem, because that’s my own little bête noire. The other two issues, however, are being roadblocked, again and again, by American religious fundamentalists. If we don’t stop them, they will actually end up killing us. I’m not being histrionic. Their efforts to suppress the news of global warming and their stalwart opposition to stem cells will, if nothing else does, eventually end your (or your kids’) life before its time.
I was listening to this story about two brothers who are trying to bridge their cultural divide: both are Christian, but one is a pro-war Republican who believed the Earth was created in seven actual days by God, and the other, well, votes for Democrats. They discuss how they’ve decided to get together more often and see where they have common ground.
The evangelical brother’s biggest problem with… I dunno, people that don’t agree with him, I suppose… is their perceived superiority. He doesn’t like the disdain, and he’s enraged by conversations where he’s perceived as an idiot.
For me, it’s summed up in a metaphor. Suppose there is a car that is supposed to drive us into the future. A lot of people with a lot of skill made the car, and it was almost done and ready to go, when another group of people come along and say “nice car, but it needs square wheels.”
“Square wheels?” the craftsmen say, “You’re… you’re joking, right?”
“No,” the group says, very loudly, “And I’ll thank you not to act so smug.”
“But round wheels work infinitely better than square wheels.”
“We don’t care. We firmly believe, to the depths of our hearts, that square wheels are the way to go.”
“We’re not putting square wheels on the car! That’s totally fucking stupid!”
“HOW DARE YOU CALL US STUPID! WE’RE GOING TO LIE IN FRONT OF THE CAR UNTIL YOU PUT OUR SQUARE WHEELS ON IT!!!”
“We’re sorry, we’re sorry,” say the craftsmen, “Maybe we can compromise… um, maybe octagons? Um…”
That argument? That’s where America is right now. The future is coming on incredibly fast, the clocks are ticking. We’re dying to go, excited about a future that could be so much better for ourselves and our families. We could be so far along on the journey, and yet we’re stuck retrofitting our vehicle with bling from the Dark Ages.
That time has expired. We have work to do. For the love of your God, please get your Hell out of the way.

Continue ReadingRetrofitting with Square Wheels

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

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

John Edwards Evoke Martin Luther King

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Excerpt from John Edward’s speech in New York:

Forty years ago, almost to the month, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood at this pulpit, in this house of God, and with the full force of his conscience, his principles and his love of peace, denounced the war in Vietnam, calling it a tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust.
As he put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal — not only of one’s personal convictions, or even of one’s country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to one another and to the brotherhood of man.
That’s the thing I find the most important about the sermon Dr. King delivered here that day. He did not direct his demands to the government of the United States, which was escalating the war. He issued a direct appeal to the people of the United States, calling on us to break our own silence, and to take responsibility for bringing about what he called a revolution of values.
A revolution whose starting point is personal responsibility, of course, but whose animating force is the belief that we cannot stand idly by and wait for others to right the wrongs of the world.
And this, in my view, is at the heart of what we should remember and celebrate on this day. This is the dream we must commit ourselves to realizing.
* * *
Escalation is not the answer, and our generals will be the first to tell you so. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in the region to take responsibility for rebuilding their own country. If we want them to take responsibility, we need to show them that we are serious about leaving – and the best way to do that is actually to start leaving and immediately withdraw 40-50,000 troops.
That is why I have spoken out against the McCain Doctrine of escalation. That’s why Congress must step up and stop the president from putting more troops in harm’s way.
If you’re in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war – use it.
And to all of you here today – and the millions like us around the country who know this escalation is wrong – your job is to reject the easy way of apathy and choose instead the hard course of action.
Silence is betrayal. Speak out. Tell your elected leaders to block this misguided plan that is destined to cost more lives and further damage America’s ability to lead. And tell them also, that the reward of courage…is trust.

Continue ReadingJohn Edwards Evoke Martin Luther King

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