Those of Us Living in Reality (Defined as ‘Knowing that Enforceable Anti-Discrimination Laws are, and Will Remain, More Important Than Gay Marriage) Have Never Had “Victory Blindness”

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times, writing about the day after the anticipated gay marriage ruling:

[T]he gay rights movement is wise to temper jubilation with caution. In a sober new book entitled “It’s Not Over,” Michelangelo Signorile, a well known gay radio host and blogger, warns against what he calls “victory blindness,” which he defines as falling prey to “a kind of bedtime story that tells us we’ve reached the promised land.” Getting beyond “mere tolerance” and winning “full equality” is likely to remain an elusive goal, he writes.

In October 1972, as Justice Harry A. Blackmun was completing work on his majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, he took a legal pad and recorded his thoughts in anticipation of a decision that would declare unconstitutional the abortion laws in nearly every state. “It will be an unsettled period for a while,” he wrote. Is there a justice jotting similar notes right now?

It will only be “unsettled” for (1) trans people whose identities matter to them and (2) all LGBTs who are not halves of couples and/or who have always lived in a reality in which the need to find and maintain employment is and will always be a practicality that outranks marriage recognition.

It will, of course, be ‘settled’ for everyone who can take their Gay, Inc. bonuses, retirement packages and other golden parachutes and go home.


Expect it to be Passed Before the Ink is Dry on the Upcoming Supreme Court Gay Marriage Decision

From Think Progress:

During a meeting of the Michigan House Committee on Commerce and Trade, Republican lawmakers sneakily introduced a substitute bill replacing HB 4052. The new legislation, sponsored by Rep. Earl Poleski (R), overrides all local ordinances governing employers’ relationships with their employees. Because of the way it would impose state control, opponents have dubbed it the “Death Star” bill. Not only does it have implications for any local ordinance that controls minimum wage, benefits, sick leave, union organizing and strikes, wage disputes, apprenticeship programs, and “ban the box” policies (blocking employers from asking about felony convictions), but it would also override the LGBT protections that exist in 38 Michigan municipalities.

“A local governmental body,” the new HB 4052 reads, “shall not adopt, enforce, or administer an ordinance, local policy, or local resolution regulating the relationship between an employer and its employees or potential employees if the regulation contains requirements exceeding those imposed by state or federal law.”

Yes, this proves yet again that Republicans only like ‘small government’ and ‘local control’ as campaign slogans.

But that should be obvious.

What it also proves is me being right when I warned over fifteen years ago that pre-emption would be the tool that the religionist right would use to wipe out – at the very least – trans civil rights but, as is coming to pass, all LGBT rights.

All Michigan LGBT people – uncoupled or otherwise – who are not so financially independent as to not need anti-discrimination laws should remember who all to thank as soon as the inevitable happens.

Ask a Trans Woman Lawyer Who Came Out in 1998…

How impressed should we be with celebrities like Miley Cyrus who risk nothing by coming out?

…and she’ll give you a copy of her latest book: Fifty Shades of ‘Not at All’

I Wish I’d Said That Fifteen Years Ago

Michelangelo Signorile in the Washington Post:

Even if marriage equality comes to all 50 states in June, after all, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people still won’t be protected against discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nor under any federal statute, a sad reality that often surprises people. There are no statewide protections in 29 states. Which means that in some states, gay and lesbian individuals have exercised the right to marry one day, only to be fired from their jobs the next after their employers learned about it.

[W]hat it is clear is that LGBT activists need to redouble the fight, not only in the states but at the federal level, where what would help most would be amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act or passing a similar bill protecting LGBT people in all areas, from housing and education to employment and public accommodations, with no broad religious exemption. They should be pressuring 2016 presidential candidates, starting with Hillary Clinton, to promise to make this a priority. And certainly they shouldn’t be declaring victory for LGBT rights, no matter what the Supreme Court does in June.

Why should anyone think that the same privileged, Gay, Inc.-ers who would show up at LGB( ) law conferences during the Bush junta to declare that ‘once we have marriage nothing else will matter’ don’t still have that attitude because, in their privileged lives in jurisdictions privileged with legal protections other than marriage, once marriage is a reality nothing else will matter because they’ll be too busy counting their money and not ponying up a penny of it to pass LGB rights laws – much less T laws – anywhere?

On Behalf of the English Language, I am Going to Countersue Her for Misuse of the Possessive

Driskell v Teh Gay

Maybe He Should Have Actually Ponied Up Reparations to the Trans People Whose Careers His Organization Destroyed


Or – just to demonstrate that I can view a glass as being half full – maybe he’s actually entertained the idea and has experienced the typical Gay, Inc., pushback?

Experience with all that is HRC, though, tells me that he think’s he’s won gay marriage and is preparing to take all of his money and go home.

Where Inclusion is Wrong

Kerry Eleveld at DKos:

The oral arguments for same-sex marriage were in large part a celebration for the LGBT equality movement.


Maybe the outcome of Obergefell v. Hodges will help trans people as individuals and maybe it won’t, but I just did a quick word search on the transcripts of the oral arguments (in two separate PDFs at the SCOTUS website – here and here) and I saw no mention of “transgender,” “transsexual” or even “sex change.”

Just observin’….