The Washington Post Goes All-In on the Kinder, Gentler TERFism

It is emblazoned with a deceptive title: “Pass the Equality Act, but don’t abandon Title IX.”

Just as friendly and inviting as “Don’t Panic,” eh?

The authors profess to believe “The Equality Act’s provisions are much needed and long overdue.”

But, of course, that quoted sentence ends with the following: “with one caveat.”

The Washington Post should have displayed a modicum of integrity and demanded that the title read: “Pass the Equality Act, but ensure that it embraces a reboot of Plessy v. Ferguson‘s ‘separate but equal.'”

Janice Raymond’s 1979 The Transsexual Empire was the full-on TERF analogue to Mein Kampf.  What Doriane Coleman, Martina Navratilova and Sanya Richards-Ross have been permitted to place in the Post‘s pages is the kinder, gentler – and far more media-friendly – call to exterminate trans women.

Think of it as The Transsexual Empire with Lee Atwater’s ghost as an unlisted co-author.

Don’t use the buzzwords. Claim that you want to tolerate their existence.  But then make sure they’re never allowed to actually do anything – wink, wink! They’ll die and go to minimum-wage hell just the same!

I refuse to link to this obscenity.


Martina Navratilova’s journey into TERFism has been underway for some time, so her involvement in this really should come as no surprise (ditto for the Washington Post‘s, in light of its continued employment of Jonathan Capehart, the presumed author of the transphobic ‘incremental progress’ screed during the ENDA Crisis of 2007). As for Richards-Ross?  Well, NBC is Rachel Maddow’s employer, right?

But what of Doriane Coleman?

Coleman is privileged with a position in legal academia – a venue which is currently as free of trans women as she wants women’s athletics to be.

Yes, we know that certain high-ranking politicos who have law degrees can parachute from political lives (especially ones plagued with scandal) to law school gigs quicker than Samantha can twitch her nose or Jeannie can blink.  But the majority of law school teaching gigs are decided to some degree by hiring committees.

And I’ll reiterate: At the moment, to the best of my knowledge, no law school in the United States permits any trans woman – even ones with scholarly publication records longer than any of their tenured faculty – to be privileged with the level of ivory tower perch from which Coleman is allowed to spew her neo-Plessy v. Ferguson-ism.  (It is possible that there is currently a trans woman adjunct or two as there have been at tiny times in the past – and a few years ago even I was able to teach undergrad sections of a University of Iowa law school course offered to undergrads as well as law school students – but the real doors of the real academy remain closed to us.)

Why should we believe that any TERF‘s espousal of separate-but-equal-ism stops at one particular aspect of life?  Follow any TERF list or TERF Twitter thread. The separate-but-equal-ism does not stop with athletics because the bigotry does not stop with athletics.


Why should anyone believe that Coleman, when involved – formally or informally – in deciding who the Duke University School of Law hires, would treat a trans woman applicant equally-and-non-separately?

But, But, But, But, But, But, But….

With this new year will come renewed attempts to use the law to discriminate against LGBT Americans, largely by deploying [married-four-times Kim] Davis’s “God’s authority” defense. The uproar last spring over attempts to pass an expansive law in Indiana that would have allowed businesses to use religious belief as a justification for treating LGBT people as second-class citizens has in no way curtailed so-called religious freedom efforts in other parts of the country.

…I thought that getting gay marriage was going to solve eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverything.

Marriage Derangement Syndrome, Inc., wouldn’t lie, would it?

I’d Like to see a No-Go Zone for Hypocrisy

Jonathan Capehart, 2002:

Albany could delay the bill further because the addition of transgender is so controversial. While legislators have been educated in gay issues over these past 30 years, there has been no similar enlightenment in Albany on transgender issues.

Jonathan Capehart, 2015:

If the voters of Houston reject Proposition 1, they will create a no-go zone for LGBT people.

The ‘no similar enlightenment’ lie was as much of a transphobic canard of disgusting, A-Gay-greed convenience in 2002 as the ‘bathroom’ lie of the diseased rhetorical alliance between right-wing christianists and TERFs is today.

In short: Jonathan Capehart may well have his head in the right place re: Houston and 2015 and, if so, good for him.  But in 2002 he had no problem with the state of New York becoming a no-go zone for trans people…

which it still is.

Don’t think trans people and their gay-approved, third-class New York state status will ever forget.

More Fake History From Jonathan Capehart

As Fox falsely portrays itself as ‘news’, the Capeharted Crusader continues to lie to America about the history of trans people’s visibility and loudness:

The T in LGBT has been relatively silent compared with the L, G and B

Half-truths are full lies, JC.

Are you on salary or do you get paid per?

Silence that exists because of being politically strangled by corporate fraudmeisters such as HRC and its antecedents, isn’t silence that you get to rely on to continue your skunk-excrement-flavored narrative’s claim that trans people didn’t show up and do anything worthy of being acknowledged by the overpaid, underworked gay elite until Bruce Jenner made a cell-phone call at the wrong time.

part of trans invisibility had to do with so few trans people coming out publicly

Why might that be, JC?

Did the non-out ones see how the overpaid, underworked gay elite openly discriminated against trans people (particularly trans women) in their own hiring practices (not to mention in the political policies that they actually pushed, as opposed to the ones that they told gullible trans people they were pushing)?

But the real problem has been a visceral discomfort with even talking about the T of LGBT. Many of us, gays and straights, don’t understand transgender issues, let alone know exactly what they are.

No, JC – not “gays and straights.

The following was belched out the other day by Mark Chase of the South Dakota Family Policy Council in a legislative hearing on a bill to negate a pro-transgender high school athletics policy adopted last year:

There is a difference between transgender and transsexual. Transgender – transgender has to do with one’s feelings, and its outlined in here; they use those words – what they feel about themselves. They were born male but they inside internally feel female. They were born female; internally inside, the feel like they are male. Transsexual – and that’s different. A transsexual is one who’s beginning the process of going through actual hormone changes, possibly, not always, an actual sex change. It’s the transsexual who’s going through hormonal changes and they must go through two years of before any surgery. That literally changes them hormonally, physically.

Not perfect by any means, particularly as to the divisiveness as between TS and TG (and, despite seeming to be okay with transsexuals as opposed to the others in the trans spectrum, I’m really, really, really not expecting to see the guy wearing a Transexual Menace t-shirt in a Pride Parade any time soon), but I will say this: Its a more coherent quasi-understanding of trans issues than anyone was likely to hear from anyone at HRC as recently as a decade ago (you know, a couple of years after it hired and quickly disappeared its first token trans employee, a couple of years after trans people spoke up against being left out of SONDA in New York – and two years before Joe Solmonese’s political fraud of 2007.)

And, putting aside the likelihood of people with anti-LGBT organizations being closet cases, we have to assume that Chase is straight.

JC, in 2015 you’re essentially pleading ignorance on behalf of your class – the overpaid, underworked gay elite.

Yet, it is that same overpaid, underworked gay elite who the trans people who did speak up to 20 years ago were bullied into oblivion by; we were told to accept their political wisdom and educational prowess – despite the fact that they refused to hire any of us to consult with politically or to do any of the educating that they claimed was the only thing really necessary for ENDA to be something more than the transphobic hate-child of Winnie Stachelberg and Barney Frank.

Thanks to high-profile activists such as actress Laverne Cox and Janet Mock, the T is speaking up and getting noticed.

I’ve already started my countdown clock to my being (deliberately) quoted out of context, so here goes: Without in any way intending to take anything away from any of Cox’s and Mock’s many accomplishments, “the T” spoke up a decade before either Mock or Cox was born.

But by the time both were born (1984), the already overpaid, underworked gay elite had forcibly – in political terms, if not physically – removed trans people and trans issues from all conversations that might be had over the next decade or so, not only by the already overpaid, underworked gay elite but by the less-than-elite LGBs (you know, the ones who work for a living and who, today, know that their problems will not be solved by the impending SCOTUS gay marriage decision this summer) whose knowledge of LGB(T) issues in the pre- and early-internet days came primarily, if not exclusively, from the already overpaid, underworked gay elite.

Finally, the LGBT community must do a better job of making common cause with others seeking equality and freedom from discrimination.

You mean like all of the trans people who the overpaid, underworked gay elite (and, in the 21st century, aided by its bought-and-paid-for Steppin’ Quisling-it) actively excluded from any possibility of becoming gainfully employed in helping to craft LGB(T) law and policy?

There are poor LGBT Americans. There are millions of people who would benefit from an increase in the national minimum wage who are also LGBT.

How will an increase in the national minimum wage help a trans woman in Alabama-with-gay-marriage or a lesbian in Mississippi-with-gay-marriage or a gay man in Arkansas-with-gay-marriage when all employers can still openly and legally refuse to hire them in the first instance?

And now I must digress.

Lets go back to something I’ve already quoted:

The T in LGBT has been relatively silent compared with the L, G and B

Remember, JC wrote that in 2015.

Most thinking people believe JC wrote this in 2007:

It requires time and patience to educate the public and lawmakers about how prejudice harms some people. That’s what gays and lesbians have been doing in their quest for equality for nearly 40 years. And that’s what transgender people will have to do. Delaying passage of ENDA, which was first introduced in the House in the mid-1970s by Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), until the transgender community changes enough hearts and minds would be a mistake.

In response to that, Autumn Sandeen wrote this in 2007 about 2002:

Back when Jonathan Capehart was a writer for the New York Daily News in 2002, he argued against including transgender protections in New York’s Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA):

[New York State Senator Tom] Duane [(D-Manhattan)] and his gay constituents already are protected by [New York] city’s human rights law. The transgendered, too. The senator’s fight puts the protection of gays and lesbians throughout the state at risk.

“I’m not trying to stop SONDA,” he said recently. “What have I been in office for? It’s been a part of my platform.”

But the eleventh-hour amendment could undermine that platform. That’s why Duane should put off his transgender activism until after the bill is passed. Untold numbers of gays and lesbians around the state need legal protection. It’s long overdue

JC, by the time you were born in 1967, two states already had laws on the books allowing transsexuals to change the sex designations on their birth certificates; while you were still excreting crap into diapers that doubtlessly was only slightly less substantive than your missives about trans people’s place in your gay nation, that number became grew by one…

And the state was Louisiana…

And it all happened because at least one trans woman (maybe more) spoke up and asked for legislative action…

Over a year before Stonewall.

JC, you’re so much of a consummate con artist that, ultimately, the only thing that I was truly surprised by upon reading your latest Washington Post piece was how HRC deigned to hire Chad Griffin instead of you.

A Fair Question

Seen recently on Facebook:

Its the numbers that matter, right?  Incremental progress is always preferable to no progress, right?

Gay, Inc. – and its Champion Scrivener MVP of 2007, The John – said so, right?

So, it is a fair question: Where does Gay, Inc., come off expecting the politicians – who we all know are the arbiters of what is and is not possible (St. Barney told us so, via his Champion Scrivener MVP of 2007, The Capeharted Crusader) – to hold all of the non-LGBT immigrants hostage to benefit some when many could be helped via incremental progress?

What’s that, Gay, Inc.?

You don’t (want to) remember “incremental progress” now?

Color me not surprised.

20 Years Ago (Give or Take 2 Weeks)

Vintage (pre-Rachel) erasure:

Advocate - 19930504

That’s from the May 4, 1993 issue of the Advocate.


Eighth overall? Check.

Second in the Midwest? Check.

First to be trans-inclusive?





Most of the responses on social media I’ve seen to my post about Rachel Maddow glossing over the trans-inclusiveness of Minnesota’s 1993 gay rights law when she offered up a quick summary of what had transpired in Minnesota in the years prior to enacting same-sex marriage this week have at least gotten the point that I was making.

What’s truly scary is the number of people who thought there was no point to make.

Some of these came from the ‘tired of us being lumped in with gay’ mindset (HBS without the initials?) – which really leaves me wondering where those people were in 2007 at ENDA time and where they will be when the next attempt is made by non-trans LGBs to make sure that those of the ‘tired of us being lumped in with gay’ mindset never have to be so worried.

People who breezed through the Advocate in the spring of 1993 didn’t have their consciousnesses tainted with the notion that gay rights laws could be anything other than gay-only, so when ENDA was first flailingly consecrated the following year there really wasn’t much of a chance that non-T LGBs would think that the trans people who then offered up a vision of ENDA contrary to that being pushed by St. Barney and HRC were anything other than high.

And then in 2007, the Aravosisists and the Capehartians could – with little fear of any mass historical memory being posied to bite them – claim that the trans scum had just shown up five minutes earlier and, in turn, had no justification for demanding inclusion in ENDA.

And now there appears to be yet another bumper crop of trans people who are doing the exclusionists’ work for them by not giving a damn about their own history.

Naming the Shill, er…, Shell Game

From Get Equal’s Robin McGehee at HuffPo, proclaiming:

We Are More Than Marriage

A nice thought, for sure – one that all of the HRC-purchased/coerced media coverage will never mention today or tomorrow (I can already hear Jonathan Capehart wetting himself over the prospect of being able to victoriously declare the gay rights movement to be over – and that all LGB(t) organizations should shut down – should the SCOTUS rule as broadly in June in favor of gay marriage as many of those with Marriage Derangement Syndrome have deluded themselves into believing is possible.  How deluded?

That’s not a final decision, of course, and SCOTUS history is replete with last-minute vote-switching but lets get real: Once the decision in these gay marriage cases are released, trans rights will be off the Gay Inc. agenda forever no matter how the decisions go.  If its 100% as the MDS-ers want, then Gay, Inc. will all but shut down – replete with Capehart’s wetness – and if it is as bad as that SCOTUSBlog tweet suggests, then every last penny of Gay, Inc. budgeting that isn’t already earmarked for gay marriage will be shifted into undoing the SCOTUS decisions.)

Marriage equality means little if you can’t put a photo of your spouse on your desk without risking being fired because you are gay, lesbian or bisexual.  Marriage equality means little if you can’t find work and therefore can’t afford to live in a safe home because you’re transgender.

And it doesn’t mean shit if Gay, Inc. – or Gay, Inc.-wannabees like Get Equal – have no intention of allowing any of its money to become part of a paycheck for a trans person.

Oh, yes, on Get Equal’s board one can find a transsexual woman and a drag king, but what about the people who are allowed to earn a living Get(ting) Equal?

GetEQUAL Staff and Consultants

Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, Co-Director

Felipe was ranked one of the top 20 community college students in the United States and best student in the state of Florida in 2008 according to the American Association of Community Colleges. In addition to his educational excellence, Felipe also found time to serve his peers as student government president of Miami Dade College Wolfson Campus. A recent graduate from St. Thomas University, he was born to a single mother in the slums of Brazil, who sent him at age 14 to the United States, where he first dreamed of becoming a teacher. Felipe walked on the Trail of Dreams in 2010 to draw attention to the need for the DREAM Act, and has been organizing for the past few years with both Presente and United We DREAM. Felipe was awarded the “Freedom From Fear” award from Public Interest Projects in 2011 for his work on the Trail of Dreams. He has a long record of pressuring both Democrats (see here) and Republicans (see here) for progress on Latino issues — and now he’s bringing that knowledge and history to the LGBT movement. You can reach Felipe by emailing him at felipe at getequal dot org.

Heather Cronk, Co-Director

Heather  joined GetEQUAL in May 2010. Prior to her work with GetEQUAL, Heather was the Chief Operating  Officer at the New Organizing Institute, overseeing operations and  expanding programs. Heather has also worked with organizations such as  mySociety in the U.K. and with in the U.S., always focused  on building community and pushing for tangible social change. A native  of Lexington, KY, Heather holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in  religion/philosophy from Berry College in Rome, GA, and a Master of  Divinity degree from Wake Forest University Divinity School in  Winston-Salem, NC. You can reach Heather by emailing her at heather at  getequal dot org.

Robin McGehee, Co-Founder and Movement-Building Strategist

Robin  is a transplant from Jackson, Mississippi, who received her M.A. in  human communication, with an emphasis on public speaking, interpersonal  and intercultural communication, from California State University,  Fresno. She is on sabbatical as an instructor at College of the Sequoias  and believes strongly that “When we speak, we shape the world!” In  2001, Robin was honored with the Martin Luther King, Jr. award for her  work with Youth Empowerment, and worked for four years with the  Gay-Straight Alliance Network and Fresno’s REEL Pride Gay and Lesbian  film festival. Robin helped organize Meet in the Middle for Equality in  Fresno, CA, a statewide reaction to the passage of Prop 8. She was  asked to co-direct the largely successful National Equality March in  October 2009 in Washington, DC. Those experiences led to her co-founding  GetEQUAL with Kip Williams in March 2010. In her free time she enjoys  traveling and spending time with her family.

Now, unless any of them are ghost trans persons – a la the phantom trans presence on the HRC staff (a person so stealth that even a number of trans people who met said person had no idea said person was trans, though said person had no problem heroically claiming to me in private e-mails not only that said person was trans but that I just had HRC soooooooooooo all wrong) which bridged the tokenism gap between double-token of Kylar Broadus and the post-2007 joke of Allyson Robinson – the staff is even more trans-free than Gay, Inc.

Yes, if the staff is but 3 it is indeed possible that it could come to be trans-free without animus.  However, there are far too many trans people out there who have been hit over the head with Gay, Inc’s ‘trans people need not apply – doubly so if you’re a trans woman’ sign and desperate for relevant advocacy work – and with experience far more specifically relevant to LGBT issues than what Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez brings to the table based on the above paragraph – for Get Equal to get a pass.

Memo to Queen Elizabeth III

The former head of the Human Right Scampaign doth writeth at HuffPo:

In the past day, President Clinton has shared his perspective that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.  I headed the largest LGBT advocacy organization, the Human Rights Campaign, when DOMA was signed into law in 1996.   So why don’t I feel grateful?

I expect more.  Call me old-fashioned, but couldn’t he just say: 1) I was wrong and 2) I am sorry.

You first, Liz.  You’ve got a heapin’ helpin’ of lies, obfuscation and flat-out transphobia to apologize for – you know, the heapin’ helpin’ of lies, obfuscation and flat-out transphobia that you helped to legitimize and institutionalize not only within the purple-n-yellow walls of HRC HQ but also within the halls of Congress?

Then-HRC head Elizabeth Birch, August 1998 (in an interview with OutSmart magazine (Houston)):


Then-HRC head Elizabeth Birch, September 1, 1999 (in Outlines (Chicago)):

Outlines: The concept of trans issues … are they in partnership just like with Black issues might be, or are they integral to the agency? ENDA is just one example of how that manifests itself.

Birch: I think that the Human Rights Campaign has done as much if not more on transgender issues than most other national [ gay and lesbian ] organizations. If you really look at the actual work. I hope we can get beyond lip service … which is what I think some of the other organizations tend to broker in. We have put a lot of muscle and time and effort to both educate on Capitol Hill, as well formulate realistic, tangible courses of action that might deliver some results down the road.


If the second one is as “honestly” “honest” as the first one purports HRC to be, then what does that say about the entirety of Gay, Inc. – including HRC – circa 1998?

If the second one is not honest, then, well….

So, again Liz: You first.

And you should be willing to push the Cape(hart)ed Crusader out of the way to be at the front of the line to deliver apologies to trans people.

But, then again, you never should have committed any of the political war crimes against trans people that you commited and then rationalized.

You can try to re-write history all you want, Liz, but you have never had any problem with pragmatism when anything that you didn’t have a personal stake in was on the chopping block and you’ve never apoligized for it.

You can try to re-write history all you want, bu we’re going to be here to re-re-write it.

Memo to Jonathan Capehart

I just saw the Cape(hart)ed Crusader on Mrs. Alan Greenspan‘s MSNBC show.

He was whining about Bill Clinton’s anti-DOMA op-ed not going far enough.

How so?

Well, it clearly expressed the view that DOMA had been an act of political expediency and was unconstitutional – and should be overturned.  But the Capehart(ed) Crusader wanted more: He wanted an overt, explicit apology from Clinton.

Here’s a thought, Capey: You go first.

You issue overt, explicit apologies for your ‘tough shit, trannies – you’re going to have to wait 40 years’ opinion pieces (at least one of which you were willing to tack your name onto but others widely believed to have been by you) regarding trans-inclusion in gay rights legislation.

Until you’re willing to do that, don’t you dare whine about Bill Clinton applying the principle of ‘incremental progress’ – Clinton’s re-election being a wee bit more important to the nation than a symbolic veto (one which would have been instantaneously overridden) of a bill outlawing something that did not exist yet – to what was then, is now and always will be Gay, Inc’s only real priority.

Because its Only Gambling When…[UPDATED]

…gay marriage is put at risk.

Now, remember this wonderful bit of Nostradamusness from Radphlegm X d/b/a/ “Vic”?

Beyond “his” prediction that the gender identity ordinance would fail (Ha!), the implication was that Maryland’s immorally-shoved-in-front-of-the-real-needs-of-trans-people gay marriage referendum would work out in favor of gay marriage.

Now, we have The John…


Is MD Governor O’Malley going to sink marriage equality?

It sure is looking that way.  Apparently, he’s found a shinier penny than our civil rights – gambling.

The link goes to a concern troll piece by that wonderful proponent of trans people havint to wait 40 years – forward from 2007 – for equality who now is all concerned about the fate of a gay-specific thingee that had no business even being spoken of in Maryland until the Jim Crow 2001 gay-only law get rectified.

Yes, our good buddy Jonathan Capehart:

Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.) really wants a deal to open a sixth casino in his state. So much so that he plans to unveil a draft bill for legislators to eyeball on Friday.

So, what does [Maryland’s gay marriage bill, headed to a referendum in November] have to do with gambling? A lot, fear advocates.

If past is prologue, the operators of the five existing casinos will fight like hell, including spending as much money as it takes, to defeat the MGM plan for Prince George’s. This is what happened when two of the companies with casinos in Maryland went head-to-head in Ohio over a 2008 ballot initiative to allow gambling in the southwest portion of the state. Lakes Entertainment of Minnesota (Rocky Gap Casino) spent $26 million in an effort to pass it. Penn National Gaming (Hollywood Casino) spent just shy of $38 million to defeat it. The measure was defeated by more than a million votes.

Now, imagine what could happen in Maryland when those two corporations, plus the other three operating in the state, go to battle to defeat the MGM casino. “Gambling overwhelms every issue in the state,” said Chrys Kefalas, former Legal Counsel to Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. (R-Md.). Kefalas is openly gay and testified in favor of the marriage equality bill in February. “This is a big fight with the potential for collateral damage.” That collateral damage being not only the marriage-equality law, but also the DREAM Act for Maryland.

A gambling ballot measure this November “will energize a base of opponents who would also vote against marriage equality at a time of soft support for marriage equality,” Kefalas told me. This last point flies in the face of recent polling we’ve seen. But Kefalas and others raise doubts about the rosy data showing growing acceptance of same-sex marriage in Maryland.

The John:

[N]ow he’s gambling with our civil rights.  We’ll be sure to remember when he tries to run for President in 2016.

More generally, again we’re dealing with the problem that others have raised before – when you turn out the black vote you’re also turning out the anti-gay vote.  It’s a real problem.  And it’s the religious right’s dream, creating a divide between the gay and black communities.  It’s going to be Governor O’Malley’s nightmare if he creates the perfect storm to take away our civil rights in November.

Oh, but blocking trans rights to force this issue through the legislature – thereby ensuring that it will be on the ballot in November – isn’t a problem for Gay Marriage, Inc.

And to think…

If you’d just done the right thing and not addressed the gay want of marriage until after addressing the trans need of legitimate civil rights protections, it might be a scummy tranny bill that will get shot down in November, thereby giving you an excuse to never deal with the issue again.

Marriage will be on the ballot in three four states in November – [UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot Minnesota!,] Maine and Washington in addition to Maryland.  I’ve yet to offer my predictions, but this is spurring me to do so.

Even prior to Gamblewhiner Gate, my view was that Maryland’s would be the least likely to survive the voters.


Do I think that any of the three might actually succeed and end up breaking the gay marriage referendum losing streak (Arizona in 2006 doesn’t count; the christianists came right back in 2008 and shoved one through)?

Yeh – I think Maine might.

First of all, its the one where pro-marriage folks got the issue on the ballot; plus, in addition to having done the right thing first and enacting a legitimate civil rights law before forcing the marriage issue, I think that folks up there are angry enough at Governor Paul ‘Chris Christie without the fashion sense’ LePage that even those who don’t care either way about marriage and even some who might be against it will vote in favor of marriage just because they know that Gov. Teabag Shlub doesn’t want it.

Washington, though, I think is a complete toss-up.  I won’t be surprised by either possible outcome; I will be surprised if the margin either way is greater than 51-49. [UPDATE: I think Minnesota falls into toss-up territory too; yes, its generally considered to be a progressive state but folks outside of Minnesota typically are not aware of just how rabid the right wing of the Republican Party (as opposed to its moderates, such as former Gov. Arne Carlson) is in Minnesota – always, in my years of experience with the state, being far, far, far to the right of wherever the national party is, and if that fringe turns out en masse in November, the marriage ban will pass statewide.)

So, same-sex marriage boosters are worried about the potential for a perfect storm that could lead to the defeat of the state’s law.

The Cape(hart)ed Crusader would know.

He’s is an expert on perfect storms – most notably those created to kill trans-inclusion.