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)):

BirchOutSmart98

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.

So…

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.

Advertisements

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…

whining…

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.

So…

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.