Well, When Last I Checked It *Does* Mean That Three Women Can Marry Newt Gingrich

Fox’s Martha MacCallum: Does This Mean 3 People Can Get Married Now?

I Just Did a Word Search in a Certain 103-Page PDF File That Was Released to the Public About 40 Minutes Ago

I didn’t see the words “transgender” or “transsexual” anywhere therein.

I’m not saying they should or should not have been (though, given that the cases did not involve any trans marriages, I do lean toward the latter.)


If Elaine Ladrach came back from the dead today and renewed her request for a marriage license at the Probate Court of Stark County, Ohio whilst waving a copy of the Obergefell v Hodges majority opinion, then Judge Denny Clunk’s successor would have to give her one – but could still brand her as being a man.  The Obergefell v Hodges majority opinion did not erase In re Ladrach or Littleton v. Prange or Kantaras v. Kantaras (or, for that matter, Goins v. West Group, not a marriage case but nevertheless a fungus which grew in the shadow of Littleton.)

So, I am questioning the accuracy of saying – as so many, including plenty of people who truly should know better, are – that the first 33 pages of that certain 103-page PDF file can be read to mean LGB*T* equality.

Mary Bonauto just proclaimed outside the Supreme Court, “And now, every person in this country who’s LGBT realizes they can marry tomorrow.”

Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree just proclaimed in an interview, “Finally, there is equality in the law.”

Will Nikki Araguz will feel that way if the Texas Supreme Court rules that her marriage to Thomas Araguz was a valid marriage, but one between two men?

“We Have Marriage”

But what do single people – and all LGBTs in states without antidiscrimination protections – have?



Contributions Now Being Accepted for the Sir Denis Eton Hogg Memorial Fund

Avengers star Patrick Macnee dies


LGB…, LGB…, LGB……….What?


No, I’m not complaining ThaT Judy Shepherd is There.

RaTher, I’m simply wondering wheTher anyone from Gwen Araujo’s family was asked To be There.

Why the Silence About the HRC Internal Report Matters

From the Sept. 14, 1989 issue of Bay Windows – coverage of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which hardwired transphobia into federal anti-discrimination law (in the process, effectively erasing a small amount of trans-positive precedent under the Nixon-era Rehabilitation Act):



Now, here is basically the same item as it appeared about two weeks later in the Southern Voice:


The SoVo image might be difficult to make out, but look close.

Still, no matter how close you look, you will not see the quote from HRC(F)’s Steve Smith praising the anti-trans (which, do note, was not just anti-transvestite; it included anti-transsexual language) and anti-gay amendments by Jesse Helms and William Armstrong.

“By and large we’re quite please with it,” stated HRCF lobbyist Steve Smith of the Helms and Armstrong exclusionary amendments.  “Homosexuality and transvestism and bisexuality are not disabilities and we are very happy to hear that Sen. Helms has taken this position and we agree with him 100 percent.”

Readers of Southern Voice didn’t see the that in 1989.

That means that readers of Southern Voice had a decision made for them.

That decision meant that they didn’t get to see HRC(F) praising Jesse Helms after HRC(F) got what HRC(F) wanted – namely, a non-exclusion for AIDS.


How much of the SoVo readership, had it had the opportunity to read the Bay Windows version of the news item, would have had their opinion of HRCF – to become HRC six years later – sufficiently altered in the negative to significantly alter the historical trajectory that has led to HRC’s position as being both the LGBT community’s money vortex and the biggest practical obstacle to passage of federal LGBT anti-discrimination legislation?

I don’t know.

I do know that, as of this writing, the Washington Blade – “America’s Leading Gay News Source” – has not offered its readership (which, unlike in 1989, includes an internet component) any substantive coverage of the HRC Internal Report – a report which exposed the organization’s entrenched culture of misogyny and transphobia….

you know, pretty much everything that the trans community has been saying has been entrenched in HRC’s corporate DNA for two decades or more.

Historically, that will matter 25 years from now.

In all practical terms, it matters now.

What they decide not to report on, people (how many? I don’t know, but the number is higher than zero) cannot use in deciding how to view not just HRC but its critics…

you know, the people whose criticism of HRC was validated by the internal report.