N.C. church sign unwittingly admits wickedness

Pastor Rondell Lance of the Center Pigeon Baptist Church of Canton, North Carolina (or whomever the church chose for the purpose of setting up their church sign), appears to have admitted the wickedness that was the basis for the church's blatant open support of North Carolina's anti-marriage Amendment One effort, which enshrines anti-gay bigotry into that state's constitution, making N.C. the last state in a now solidly wicked South to do so by a "popular" vote.

For anyone who has actually read the Genesis story about the actions and punishment of the Men of Sodom, the story is not a condemnation of homosexuality (a lying misinterpretation that is taught by Christianists ranging from this backwoods independent Baptist preacher Rondell Lance from his pulpit in the mountains of Western North Carolina, a few miles south of I-40 and not terribly far east of the possibly even more backwards State of Tennessee, all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI,spiritual leader of over a billion Roman Catholics (many of whom thankfully ignore him) from the papal throne at the Vatican in Rome).  It is about inhospitable intolerance for strangers and people who are different, by macho misogynistic people.  It's all pretty much clear from a reading of Genesis 19, unless it's a bizarro reading.

The right-wing conservative Christianist base of the Republican Party is truly inspired by the macho misogynistic wickedness and intolerance of their heroes, the Men of Sodom. Pastor Rondell Lance is perhaps the rare one who is willing to actually admit it on a church sign.

So, thanks to Pastor Rondell Lance and his church sign, we can understand that the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom are the inspiration for the Republican War on LGBT people, because we are strangers in their midst, different from their cissexist and heterosexist selves. Because we are different from them, they hate, fear and despise us.

Bit it isn't just us - and it appears that this deep spiritual evil root of this right-wing conservative Christianist Republican politics - the inspiration of the exceeding wickedness of the Men of Sodom - is also responsible for so many of the deeply-held positions of the Republican Party, such as:

The Republican War on Women.  Needless to say, the Men of Sodom were macho misogynists.  Their whole rationale for wanting to show their disrespect for Lot's visitors had nothing to do with sexual orientation, and everything to do with the fact that they believed women were lesser creatures than men.  By extension, their intent to rape the strangers in their midst would, in their way of thinking, prove that the Men of Sodom were the real "he-men," and that the strangers, who would have been "used" in the same way that the Men of Sodom "used" their women, were debased and "less than women."  It almost goes without saying that the attitude of the womb-controllers in the Republican Party is modeled on the misogyny of the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Immigrants. Like Lot's visitors, immigrants come from somewhere else.  They are strangers in our midst.  Republicans want to treat them disrespectfully.  That is just like their spiritual ancestors, the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Islam. They're different, they worship what seems to Republicans to be a different god (A classic example of this is that of the thankfully now-retired U.S. Army general, William G. Boykin, a Christianist who ridiculed the faith of Muslims, in a 2003 NBC interview, stating about an Islamic terrorist he hunted down in Mogadishu, "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."  For that matter, during the Republican primaries, one of the reasons many Christianist GOPers were looking to "Anyone But Romney" was because his LDS faith marks him as being different, a stranger in our midst (and they were even willing to flock to Rick Santorum, A Roman Catholic who, just a few decades ago, would have been viewed as a stranger as well).  Again, the Republican position is just like that of their spiritual inspiration, the exceedingly wicked Men of Sodom.

The Republican War on Racial Minorities.  People who are not white are different, strangers in the midst of the community.  This also passes the "inspired by the Men of Sodom" sniff test.

I could go on.

The thing is, that church sign in Canton, North Carolina says in truth what the inspiration of the Republican Christianist forces of Darkness really is - a deeply held distrust, revulsion and hatred for people who are different from themselves.

The exceedingly wicked Pastor Rondell Lance, with his bizarro Orwellian-Newspeaky brand of Christianist theology, likely does not realize the truth of the admission of wickedness on his church sign.  After all, he mistakenly believes that gay men are the ones who are like the Men of Sodom, rather than being more like Lot's visitors, the strangers in the midst of the community because they are different from the heterosexist majority of voters.

But I know what the true meaning of the sign is.  And now, if you've actually read this whole blog post, so do you, if you didn't know it already.

Spread the word.

WND's Joseph Farah: Clueless about marriage equality

I was visiting the highly regarded Pam’s House Blend blog Sunday morning, and found an interesting article of Pam’s, commenting on a column over at WorldNutDaily (remember, they can’t seem to spell “Nut” which somehow comes out as “Net,” by the “founder, editor and CEO” there, the noted slacker Joseph Farah, entitled “Conservative Surrender on Same-Sex Marriage?"

After reading Pam’s column exposing Farah’s cluelessness, I thought it might be worthwhile and fun to join in the pile-on.

Pam concludes her column by giving us four possibilities as to why conservatives are not listening to people like Joe Farah any more – the last possibility:

“4) simply tired and offended by the political bedroom-peeping proclivities of people like Farah dressed up as moral righteousness.”

I believe that last item is the most likely reason real conservatives are starting to abandon their bigoted Christianist "social conservative" associates, as society becomes increasingly aware that the Christianists are not really Christians, they are bigots who wrap themselves in a cloak of Christian-looking doctrine.

While Pam does not directly address the “Christianist” arguments beyond pointing them out and indicating that they are irrelevant, I would like to tear that fig leaf from Joe Farah, and expose the ugly truth beneath.

But first, let’s deal with the idea that Farah’s “traitors” are somehow not *real* conservatives. It's really Joe who isn't conservative - and apparently he knows that.

I’d like to turn the “conservative” part of the explanation to Ted Olson, whose credentials as a real conservative are unsullied, and whose words are authentic. The following quotes from Ted Olson are all excerpted from a transcript of his amazing FOX News interview about the recent California federal district court marriage case decision, which is available online at:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage

Farah cites an unnamed “homosexual activist blog” to point out :

“"But isn't it something how the issue of marriage equality is slowly starting to tear at the GOP. What a difference a few years make. In 2004, there was nary a Republican that could get behind the issue of marriage equality without looking like a Benedict Arnold. And now? The trend is shifting big time." "

And to name names, in addition to Anne Coulter:

"Ted Olson, Margaret Hoover, Meghan McCain, Glenn Beck, Laura Bush, Steve
Schmidt, Cindy McCain, Charlie Baker, Elisabeth Hasselbeck ... it's like each
day a new high-profile conservative jumps on the marriage equality bandwagon."

Af course, that astute blogger was in all probablility Pam Spaulding – see her blog essays at:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17154/game-over-man-antigay-forces-know-the-marriage-war-is-over-as-conservatives-toss-them-overboard

and

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17143/mike-signorile-interviews-wnds-farah-on-coulters-betrayal-my-eyes-have-been-opened

and

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/17111/worldnetdailys-farah-in-complete-meltdown-as-highprofile-conservatives-embrace-the-homos


as examples of Pam’s astute analysis of Farah’s slackitude..

Farah whines:

“The people vote and express their will in overwhelming numbers to affirm
something as basic as traditional marriage between one man and one woman.”

But Ted Olson has already answered with the *real* conservative view about the clash between what Alexis de Tocqueville characterized as “the tyranny of the majority” and the bedrock conservative American value of individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment:

“If we didn't have a separation of powers, if we didn't have a Bill of Rights, then 7 million Californians could take away your rights, or my rights or the rights of these citizens in California. But we do have a Bill of Rights, and it's intended to protect us. The 14th Amendment was the result that -- the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process and equal protection to all citizens, to all persons, was the result of a civil war intended to enforce the promise of our Constitution that all men and women are created equal.”

Farah rants:

“Judges assail the process and explain that only bigotry could explain their votes. Election results are overturned.”

On this, and the issue of whether the California marriage decision involved “judicial activism” (a popular right wing mantra), here is what Olson has to say:

“. . . since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We're not talking about a new right here.

We're talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.

We do not permit discrimination, inequality. That's why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens. It's not judicial activism when judges do what the Constitution requires them to do, and they follow the precedent of previousdecisions of the Supreme Court.”

Ted Olsen pointed out:

“. . . most people use the term "judicial activism" to explain decisions that they don't like.”

“And what the court decided here -- the Supreme Court, as I said, of the United States has 14 times decided that the fundamental right to marry is an important constitutional right. The judge applied that right, that existing right, that fully determined and repeatedly determined constitutional right, to some tens of thousands of citizens in California who are being harmed by discrimination. That is not judicial activism. That is judicial responsibility. ”

Olson further notes:

“Yes, it's encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I am very, very pleased about that, because it is extraordinarily damaging to our citizens, our family members, our brothers, our sisters, our co- workers and our neighbors when they are labeled second-class citizens.”

Farah continues with his pathetic moans:

“The conservative movement is nearing surrender on the issue – even while public opinion stands firmly committed against same-sex marriage.“

Some of Olson’s bedrock conservatism comes out in this quote that works to skewer Farah's assertion:

“When the state of California, as it did in this case, enshrined in its constitution a separate status for certain of its citizens, it did immeasurable harm. We can't wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm that is unconstitutional must finally be eliminated.

I applaud the fact that things are changing, and I think this case is helping open people's eyes to the damage done by discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Farah sobs:

“If we lose the battle over marriage, I'm not sure there's much left to preserve. Marriage is literally the building block of our civilization. Destroy it and you destroy the foundation."

Olson’s answer to this one is the cincher, the bottom line – what *real* conservatives think (addressing the FOX interviewer):

“Chris, we believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and a stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage. We believe that that is a conservative value.

We also believe that it's an important conservative value to sustain the rights of liberty of our citizens and to eliminate discrimination on invidious bases, whether it's race, or sex or sexual orientation. It should be a liberal and a conservative value. It is a fundamental American value. All men and all women are created equal under the law. ”

I want to repeat the principle:

“It should be a liberal and a conservative value. It is a fundamental American value. All men and all women are created equal under the law.”

Now, look at pathetic Joe Farah again. Farah even quotes from another conservative blogger – one who actually “gets” the point:

“ “In time, gay people will be married, extending the valuable social institution of marriage to more people," writes blogger Jon Henke of TheNextRight.com. "In time, conservatives will argue that the positive impact that marriage has on the gay community is further evidence of the importance of the institution of marriage."”

If you want to read Jon Henke’s long-standing position on marriage equality, he makes a compelling case in his June 10, 2006 (that’s right, 2006) blog at Quando.net – “The Libertarian Case for Gay Marriage”

Farah has had the opportunity to read what real conservatives other than Ted Olson are saying and writing, and he is still clueless!

Farah seems to have a kind of psychotic belief not based in anything but his fantasy world, that there are people out there who are looking to destroy “traditional marriage.”

This fantasy argument has been trotted out every time that there has been legal change in the understanding of marriage, beginning with the abansonment of the common law of “coverture” that reduced women to virtual chattel status under the control of their husbands.

It was raised in New York by the social conservatives of the 1830's - 1850;s, who railed against the adoption of the two “Married Women’s Property Acts” of 1848 and 1860. They even used bible passages that indicate that "wives should be obedient to their husbands" in support of continuing to oppress women.

The sort of marriage that Joe Farah wants to “preserve” was changed long ago, and for the better. If marriage laws are made completely gender-neutral, this will have zero adverse impact on marriages between a man and a woman. They will still be permitted.

It is not, as Farah would have us believe, a matter of requiring heterosexual couples to divorce and each take on a same sex spouse – which is the only way “traditional marriage” would be “destroyed” by some kind of “same-sex” marriage. The fact is, that making marriage laws fully gender neutral will not destroy anything, but will strengthen marriage, just as both Ted Olson, Jon Henke, and numerous others have pointed out.

The fact is that real conservatives are finally waking up to the fact that they can’t reconcile real conservative principles favoring individual liberty over government coercion with the bigotry pandered by “social conservatives” whose beliefs are rooted in their hatred of people who are different, lightly wrapped in a veil of “Christian” religious beliefs.

For a number of years, real conservatives have felt they had to put up with Christianist social conservative allies, because they needed their help to get enough votes to get elected. Ronald Reagan gave the Christianist social conservatves lip service. Unfortunately for real conservatives, George W. Bush, who is himself a Christianist, gave the Christianists a lot of what they wanted. This has scared the real conservatives.

The real conservatives have awakened to realize that the Christianist "social" conservatives are dragging them down, rather than lifting them up – and no one wants to drown in the muck and mire of bigotry and prejudice.

So let’s look at Christian beliefs – it’s time to tear that fig leaf from Farah’s Christianist cloaking. Farah is not really a Christian, he is a Christianist, because he consistently misunderstands and misinterprets the Bible as a justification for un-American discriminatory attitudes against people who are different from the majority. Real conservatives can also be real Christians. (For that matter, real liberals can also be real Christians!)


Farah sets us up with his fantasies about the nature of marriage:

“I am ashamed of these people who should know better flirting with the destruction of a 6,000-year-old, God-created institution with no regard for the unforeseen and unimaginable consequences.”

The last time I checked, neither Joe Farah nor Joe Ratzinger was qualified to speak the mind of God to anyone – and their interpretations and understandings of God and religion are not binding on the American People or on the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the several states.

As I have pointed out with the assistance of Pam Spaulding, Ted Olson and Jon Henke, no one is destroying Farah’s version of a “6,000-year-old, God-created institution.” On the day after marriage equality became the law in Massachuusetts, churches all over that state were still celebrating traditional heterosexual marriages. Nothing was changed about those marriages! The same situation is true of the other states and jurisdictions in which marriage equality is recognized – the freedom of those Christians and Christianists and other faiths who will only sanctify, sacramentalize, or bless heterosexual marriages, to continue to do so, is still maintained. The freedom of those Christian and other faiths that will sanctify, sacramentalize, or bless marriages on a gender neutral basis is no longer suppressed in those states and jurisdictions.

Farah goes on to quote scripture:

“If there is a subject upon which the Bible is crystal clear – from beginning to end – it is homosexuality. Another subject about which no one can misinterpret what the Bible says is marriage. Let's examine the text:
• Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
• Romans 1:22-27: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." ”

Let us examine the contexts. The Leviticus quote at worst may refer to one particular kind of sexual activity that may be engaged by gay men – it does not refer to all different ways in which gay men can sexually satisfy each other. But how does Joe Farah square this with the marriage of David and Jonathan, clearly presented in 1 Samuel 18?

The fact is that the Leviticus quote is more accurately limited to forcible sodomy – the kind of inhospitable treatment of strangers envisioned by the Men of Sodom. The misogyny can also be recognized – to the Men of Sodom as well as to the patriarchal Israelites, treating another man as a sex object for forcible carnal use was to lie with him “as with a woman.”

The Romans quote is the only one that is ever used by Christianists against lesbians, who also have the example of the Book of Ruth to guide them.

Farah does not look at the context of Romans 1 – which involves heterosexual people who were engaging in sex acts against their natures under the influence of the wine administered as part of the orgiastic practices of some Greco-roman religious traditions of the times, and particularly the Dionysian (Bacchic) practices. The key language in the version quoted by Farah is “natural use.” For heterosexual people, it is as unnatural to engage in same-sex sexual activity as it is unnatural for homosexual people to engage in opposite-sex sexual activity.

So clearly, Farah’s Christianity is suspect – though it is perfectly all right for him to maintain his version of the interpretation of scripture, it is wrong for him to claim that it is the only interpretation. Indeed, his interpretation flies in the face of American constitutional principles, and while he may be protected in his own freedom of religious expression, he is on weak ground when he insists that his religious freedom should trump everyone else’s, particularly outside his church.

Joe blathers on, first speaking that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law (and apparently this must include 1 Samuel 18), and he continues:

“In Matthew 19:4-6, it says: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? ”

But Jesus says exactly nothing about those instances in which a man may leave his parents and cleave unto another man, or where a woman may leave her parents and cleave unto another woman. This may not have happened in the culture of the time, though there is evidence that same-sex relationships were blessed in the early Church.

The initial Creation of Adam as a woman-man (in God’s image and likeness) and the subsequent split of Adam into Adam and Eve, is not a literal story, it’s an allegory, an allegory on the same level as the similar story from Plato’s Symposium, as related by the great playwright Aristophanes, in which he similarly explains the creation and splitting in such a way as to explain the variety of sexual orientations among humans – certainly a part of human nature, though one that was somewhat simplified in the patriarchal bible story. I would suggest that Aristophanes is at least as good a source of ancient mythology as the Bible.

Farah states:

“Either you believe the Bible or you don't.”

Apparently, Farah does not understand that there are different interpretations and understandings on what the Bible means – if we took the whole thing literally, there are numerous contradictions and some pretty bad aspects to it that would make it totally useless as a source for religious or moral guidance.

The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are not bible-based.

Farah points out :

“But followers of Jesus cannot find some happy medium where they can please God and please the world. Nobody can. I choose obedience.“

In this case, that is fine – and biblical obedience clearly implies that Joe Farah should remove himself from the Modern world to some monastery where he can remain silent, pray, raise grain and make bread, and await the return of Jesus.

In the meantime, Joe should read 1 Corinthians 6:1-8:

1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?

2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church?

5 I say this to move you to shame. What, cannot there be found among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren,

6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

7 Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?

8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Of course, this passage continues:

9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:

14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power.

15 Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid.

16 Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;

20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.

I point the second half of the chapter out because there are those who will use verses 9, 19 and 20 to criticize transsexual people who seek the appropriate medical and surgical treatment, despite the clear message in Isaiah 56, Mathew 19:12 and Acts 8 that eunuchs (a term that includes transgender, transsexual and intersex people) are loved by God. Part of the problem has to do with relying on English translations rather than looking to the original languages - and while more modern translations might further obscure the meaning, even the more literal translations, such as the American Standard Version (ASV) used here, there are ossues in the understanding of the words.

Still, Joe Farah likes to pick and choose his bible verses, anyway.

In response to that, I will reproduce here, and commend you to the Snopes.com investigative commentary on it, a 2004 version of a ca. 2000 “Letter to Doctor Laura” that deals with a number of “literal” Bible teachings:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,

I would like to challenge Joe Farah to address the issues posed in the “Letter to Doctor Laura” – if his version of Christianity, in which “Either you believe the Bible or you don’t” in a literal manner, without taking anything else into consideration. Is correct, he must have some answer to these questions.

But then, if Joe wants to be a real conservative, he has to understand that American conservatism, like American liberalism, is not compatible with his version of Christianity. He has a choice – to either be “obedient to” (or rather, to agree with!) conservative American principles, or to be “obedient to” his crackpot version of what he thinks God wants. He has chosen his religious beliefs. So why hasn’t he retreated from the modern world? He doesn’t have to drink any Kool-Aid to accelerate his personal Rapture – a monastery of some kind, where he can withdraw from the secular world, would be good enough to keep him on the “straight” and narrow. It does not have to be a monastery that requires celibacy – if Joe can’t control his sexual urges, the Bible allows him to get married (see 1 Corinthians 7:8-9) – I am sure there must be some sort of religious center that would allow him to practice marital relations while contemplating and praying, and keeping out of American secular affairs that are inconsistent with his beliefs.

On the other hand, if Joe really does not want the early “Kool-Aid” Rapture, or life in a monastery, maybe he can try to understand the idea of the First Amendment as it relates to both the establishment and free exercise of religion.

He might want to carefully read that 2006 Jon Henke essay about marriage, if he sincerely wants to get a clue.

Maybe he might find a way to reconcile his religious beliefs with the principles of American liberty and justice. If he wishes to maintain his intolerance, there’s always the monastery, or the Kool-Aid, or even just leaving us alone. Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that he will ever see the light of reason and Truth.

Joe wrote:

“Someone needs to hold the celebrities accountable. Someone needs to offer correction.”

Joe Farah, celebrity slacker, consider yourself corrected. And if you show up on September 17th to debate GOProud’s board chair Chris Barron (reported later yesterday at Pam’s House Blend) , expect to be thoroughly exposed as the intolerant bigot you are. As a former moderate libertarian member of the late William Buckley’s Young Americans for Freedom (when I was in college). I will be rooting for Chris. I may be a proud progressive Democrat these days, but I still have a moderate libertarian philosophy (one that is well removed from the near-anarchy of radical libertarianism) underlying what everyone seems to see as a liberal point of view.

AFA’s Fischer proves he is Neither Conservative nor Christian

On August 21, 2010. Bryan Fischer of the American “Family” Association, writing in an article entitled “Coulter, Beck go AWOL in culture war” published on the WorldNetDaily (Sheesh! they can’t even spell WorldNutDaily correctly!)website has the most amazing effrontery to claim that there can’t be any such thing as a gay conservative, or a conservative “endorsing homosexual behavior.”

He writes:

“Let's be clear: Endorsing homosexual behavior is not a conservative position, period.”

Now, lawyer Ted Olson is perhaps one of the brightest *real* conservatives in the United States, and he has volunteered himself as one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8. Perhaps the best clip I have seen on the issue of marriage equality from a conservative position came from, of all sources, FOX NEwschannel:




I am just letting Ted Olson speak for real conservatives!

Then Fischer says:

“Supporting special rights based on aberrant sexual behavior is not conservative, period.”

The first thing wrong with this lying sentence is that Fischer does not understand nature. Homosexual behavior is natural and not aberrant, for persons who were created by God with same-sex attraction. Even Paul the Apostle, in Romans 1, makes it clear that it is sinful for people to act against their natures – the passage refers to ordinarily straight people acting against their orientations during orgiastic Greco-roman religious rituals involving consumption of large amounts of wine. One can read that passage with understanding and realize that it is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior, in and of itself, but only when it involves a person acting against her or his nature.

Real conservatives oppose supporting special rights – that’s REAL conservatives, like Ted Olson.


Immediately, Fischer continues with yet another whopper (he's on a roll, or should I say, buns):

“Supporting either civil unions or marriages based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes is not conservative, period.”

My first observation about this whopper is that Fischer assumes that marriage equality involves relationships “based entirely on using the alimentary canal for sexual purposes.” It’s fairly clear that Fischer has no idea about what same-sex couples in a sexual relationship might do with each other, sexually, and he does not seem to have any idea about the diversity of sexual behavior, regardless of sexual orientation. Neither same sex, nor opposite sex relationships are based solely on using the alimentary canal. Presumably, Mr. Fischer has never kissed a woman, or perhaps does not understands that mouths are a part of the alimentary canal, and that they figure prominently in “Straight” sex as well.

“Alimentary canal” is a term that is defined as:

n. The mucous membrane-lined tube of the digestive system through which food passes, in which digestion takes place, and from which wastes are eliminated. It extends from the mouth to the anus and includes the pharynx, esophagus, stomach, and intestines. Also called digestive tract.

About the only sexual act I’d consider engaging in that exclusively uses the alimentary canal is mouth-to-mouth kissing, though I understand it is entirely possible that a panderer like Mr. Fischer would have on his mind some kinkier activities that might involve oral contact with the other end of the alimentary canal. I think Fischer has a dirty mind. That’s what I think.

Kissing is an often but not exclusively sexual act that involves the mouth but the mouth can be used to kiss a lot of other palces that are not part of the alimentary canal. There are many other sexual activities that use the mouth, and I don’t believe that any of these are exclusively the province of same-sex relationships. Similarly, while I am not aware of any sexual activities “exclusively using the alimentary canal” that involve anus to anus contact, I am sure Mr. Fischer must know of something along those lines, though I am sure that he can’t really be so dim that he thinks that is what gay people do.

On the issue of what *real* conservatives might believe, I again refer to the Olson clip.

Fischer's last lie (well not the last one he wrote, just the last that I’ll comment on here):

“Even Darwinian evolutionists know better than to believe there is something healthy about homosexual conduct. They know it cannot lead to the propagation of the species, which, after all, is what evolution is supposed to be all about.”

Fischer shows how little he understands about evolutionary theory. This is not surprising, considering that it’s likely from his affiliations that he could be some sort of Creationist. I’d recommend that Bryan (and anyone else wishing to learn about sexual selection) read “Evolution’s Rainbow, “ by Dr. Joan Roughgarden.

Get the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520240731


or here
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Evolutions-Rainbow/Joan-Roughgarden/e/9780520246799

So, once we examine the facts, it appears that Bryan Fischer proves in his own words that:

a. he is the one who can’t be a real conservative; and

b. he really does not know much of anything at all that is in the least factual, that he isn't afraid to substitute really weird lies for the truth.

There is some consolation for Bryan Fischer. There are all sorts of right wingnuts out there, ranging from isolationist and hawkish neo-cons, to the Christianist Dominionists who want to create an American theocracy. It’s likely that Mr. Fischer may be one of the latter, but it’s not clear from this particular article. Those are the sort of people who might take him seriously. Unfortunately there are too many gullible and ignorant people out there, in addition to people like Fischer who bear malicious intent toward people who are different.

Many of the right wingnut sort of “conservative” types like Fischer are pandering to the disgruntled “Tea Partiers” who have emerged since the election of Barack Obama – a formless movement of largely ignorant and gullible people who were previously not motivated enough to care about politics. Many of these tea partiers are driven by the words of lying demagogues who can’t seem to accept the idea that America elected an African American (yes, of the half-blood, but still African-American based on both their “one drop of blood” racial purity thoughts, and the way the president identified himself on the 2010 census) president. Many tea partiers have become “birthers” - they have been gulled into believing that a Hawaii birth certificate can’t be a real birth certificate, and many of them inexplicably believe that the president is a Muslim. Apparently those aren’t even familiar enough with Presient Obamas embarrassing longstanding association with the “Chriatian” church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a Christianist with rather wingnutty beliefs.

Bryan Fischer is not only not a *real* conservative, he is also a false Christian, and he and his organization are the sort that taps into the religious bigotry of other false Christians, who wrap themselves in the flag and cross like wolves wearing the skins of sheep, without understanding the principles of the Constitution or the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The context of his WorldNutDaily article is an attack on Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. You will note that I am not actually defending either of them, just pointing out that Bryan Fischer, at least, makes absolutely no sense at all. Read from that what you will.

Sharing Umbrellas?

In the US, some of the earliest human rights ordinances that were adopted (as early as 1975) treated trans within the definition of sexual orientation. Most later laws and ordinances have made a distinction. But that doesn’t stop some people from seeing “trans” as a sexual orientation.

Some will say that the LGBT “umbrella” (or (or "GLBT umbrella" for those who don't believe in "ladies first") is responsible for the problem. It's the "LGBT Umbrella" that creates the confusion - three "sexual orientations" coupled with "gender identity and expression." Of course, the reason for the inclusion of T (which always comes at the end in the four-letter versions), as well as I (for Intersex) and one or more Qs (for Queer and Questioning), is because all of these identities, orientations and expressions are not shared by the majority of people, who are Cisgendered, Cissexual, Conforming and Heterosexual.

There’s also a controversy about the "transgender umbrella," which has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation – but creates a great deal of agitation among transsexual separatists who claim they don’t fall within the shadow of that umbrella.

Unless it’s properly understood as being reflective of sexual minorities and not only sexual orientations, the "LGBT Umbrella" can create confusion - three "sexual orientations" coupled with "gender identity and expression."

And yes, the transsexual separatists do have a point – the “transgender umbrella” can be misunderstood. (In fact, the separatists themselves often misunderstand it.)

When I do one of my "Trans 101" lectures, I talk about "the binary of sex and gender" and explain that for most people, sex and gender are conflated - male is synonymous with man, and female is synonymous with woman. I also explain that in English, we don't really have good language to easily express the differences, so I use some terms as "terms of art" that take on a slightly unconventional meaning.

Then I start with four basic characteristics to break down sex and gender:

Gender Identity (GI)
Sex Assignment (SA)
Gender Expression/Social Role (GE)
Sexual Orientation (SO)

(You see, sexual orientation gets to be a part of sex/gender, but not the overarching thing)

Then I go with the "Either/Or" of the binary:

GI . . . Masculine . . . Feminine
SA . . . Male . . . . . . . . Female
GE . . . Man . . . . . . . . Woman
SO . . . Attracted . . . . Attracted
. . . . . . .to women . . . . to men


A bit over 90% of the population will identify as one or the other of these "either/or" columns.

Then I get into Both/Neither in each characteristic, bringing in bigender (GI), agender (GI), intersex (SA - for both *and* neither), alternate presentation (GE), mixed presentation(GE), neutral presenation (GE), attracted-to-both (SO), and attracted to neither (SO).

Then we go through how there is such a diversity of identities in that less-than-10% of the population.

Gender Identity and Gender Expression are Cisgender/Transgender characteristics. Sex Assignment is a Cissexual/Transsexual/Intersex characteristic, and Sexual orientation is a Heterosexual/Homosexual/Bisexual/Asexual characteristic.

It's clear to me that those with a reversed polarity in any of the characteristics, as well as those who are "both" or "neither" should be covered in human rights laws.

In a recent e-mail conversation I had with a Canadian trans-activist, I agreed that it is an error for the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition to include aboriginal two-spirit people *solely* under sexual orientation. Of course, just like everyone else, two-spirit folks do have sexual orientations, they also have gender identities and gender expressions, *and* sex assignments!

As to including "all gender-non-conforming people" as homosexual? That seems a *lot* like a retrogression to the 1960's and 1970's - when the public perception of "trans" was as a kind of "gay." I guess that there is a bit of education that remains to be done.

BTW, on the "transgender as umbrella" thing - if you were to take my little matrix, it shows that both those who accept the "transgender umbrella" and those who reject it, do have a point. Transsexual relates to "sex assignment," Transgender relates to "gender identity" and "gender expression."

But transsexual people, like gay people, don't live in a vacuum. Transsexual people have gender identity and gender expression as well as a sex assignment (or in some cases, a sex re-assignment). For someone assigned as "Or" at birth, having a gender identity that is "Either" is one of the bases for seeking a change of SA. (And part-time crossdressers are often "Both" in gender identity and thus don't seek a change of SA.)

A part of the problem with the way some transsexual separatists view the situation, is that they will focus exclusively on the sex assignment aspect of things, and will even deny the existence of “gender identity.” (And for some, I actually have to refer to “gender identity” as “sex identity” because they will claim “gender identity” doesn’t exist, or refers to the Butch/Femme scale, while taking the definition customarily associated with “gender identity” and calling it “sex identity.” This is, of course, a matter of semantics.)

I am a firm advocate of replacing the “skinner box” psychology-psychiatry-as-equivalent-of-alchemy-astrology idea of “Gender Identity Disorder” with a recognition of Harry Benjamin Syndrome, a medical condition, not a psychiatric one.

I am also a firm believer that people who are born with HBS never really belong in their original sex assignment, and are not really male-to female (MTF) but are Women Born Transsexual (WBT), or not really female-to-male (FTM) but are Men Born Transsexual (MBT). This terminology change would reflect the recognition that people with HBS develop in such a way that their BSTc develops with a characteristic neuronal density related to target sex, not birth-assigned sex, while the mullerian or wollfian duct system developed in accordance with birth-assigned sex (except for those individuals with an intersex condition that is not solely centered in the brain development). The existence of the studies related to the BSTc and the long androgen receptor gene goes a long way to establishing HBS as a reality. I also believe that there is a need for study of the causes of whatever it is that causes non-transsexual transgender identities – is it related to HBS, or is it a completely different phenomenon? Could there be situations where the long androgen receptor gene is only partly expressed? What does the BSTc look like for part-time crossdressers who indicate that they are expressing an inner “feminine identity?” We don’t have answers to questions like these, so we’re in a situation where there is a lot more gray area than one might like, regardless of whether one is a separatist or not.

The fact that there are some ostensibly-heterosexual part-time MTF crossdressers who have an organization that excludes gays and post-op transsexuals doesn’t mean they are the root of some vast “transgender conspiracy” even if the founder of that organization had poorly-conceived understanding of the nature of transsexuality. The fact that there are some who advocate in favor of destroying the binary of sex and gender for everyone (rather than expanding it so that it isn’t just a binary and includes everyone), does not imply that anyone who is not a post-op is a member of this straw-man “transgender conspiracy.” The fact that there are mentally ill and socially pathological people who also have a sexual fetish for opposite-sex articles of clothing does not make them representative of all people “under the umbrella” (and in fact, if these people do not have an “opposite” or “bi” gender identity, those folks are not really under the “transgender” umbrella in the first place), does not support the existence of a vast “transgender conspiracy.”

I can understand and appreciate the fact that there are certain aspects of “reasonable accommodation” to which post-ops should have easier access and recognition, by virtue of having undergone the surgical procedures, which should be recognized as prima facie evidence of entitlement, while those who are pre-op or non-op should have more hoops to jump and perhaps a degree less accommodation. There is a huge difference between this and a common transsexual separatist position, which is that surgery should be the bright line for everything. It is also hugely different from the “straw man” transgender conspiracy created by some transsexual separatists that supposedly advocates that surgery shouldn’t be a consideration for anything, and that everything should be based on identity alone. (And I am sure there are perhaps a few out there who fit the “straw man” definition – after all, there is a diversity among advocates, and some may well fit into the boogie-trans category, monsters waiting under our beds and in our closets. But a few extremists do not represent the entire “umbrella.”)

Some transsexual separatists claim that the inclusive “transgender umbrella” folks are invading their space and claiming that “we are all the same.” The first thing, is that there is not a person with HBS who does not fit into the “set” (set theory was taught to me in the 5th grade with “new math” and I have always found it fascinating) of “people whose gender identity is opposite that expected for persons assigned the sex they were assigned at birth.” That is a “set” that excludes anyone without HBS. But they’re also members of a *larger* set – that of “people whose gender identity is different from that expected for persons assigned the sex they were assigned at birth.”

With the set of “opposite” one includes only persons whose gender identity is opposite that associated with birth assignment. With the set of “different” one also *includes* those whose identity is bigendered or agendered as well as opposite-gendered. That’s the “transgender umbrella” by definition. The only people who aren’t under the shadow of that umbrella are the cisgendered cissexual people who form a large majority (larger, if we include non-trans folks who have a cisgendered cissexual identity while having heir differences in sexual orientation!)

The last thought brings us to the next – what about sexual orientation? It seems that many but not all WBTs who have an issue with the “transgender umbrella” also have an issue with the “LGBT umbrella.” Many but not all of these are heterosexual based in reassigned sex. Perhaps it’s because they, once having completed surgery, desperately want to be included with the Cisgendered Cissexual Conforming and Heterosexual majority, and they see anyone who thinks of them as falling within the minority umbrella (LGBT or transgender) as holding them back from recognition.

The fact is that those transsexual separatists, by aligning with an oppressor majority, attempt to currying favor with that majority by claiming that by virtue of surgery they’ve joined the majority – and it’s those others, those sexual minorities, who shouldn’t have rights. (And there are some who might be transsexual separatists in some regards, who are actually enlightened enough to understand that there are some shared rights.)

Some transsexual separatists who identify as lesbian or bisexual may not have a terrible problem with gay and lesbian people, but see the “transsexual umbrella” as keeping them away from recognition as cissexual, or at least cissexual enough to be accepted as cissexual.

Some of the loathing I see expressed toward “transgender” is aimed at those who are bigender. This phenomenon is very mucg similar to the treatment of bisexual people in some gay and lesbian circles.

It is perhaps axiomatic that people whose polarities are “opposite” bus still within the binary, might have a tendency to look askance as those who have an aspect that falls outside the “Either/Or.” A “Both” identity, orientation or expression, can be viewed badly by those whose desire is to assimilate. (And no one seems to want to bother even thinking about the “Neithers.” It’s as if they didn’t exist – but they do!) With those who are post-op, the assimilation is more acute by virtue of having undergone surgery to fit in, than it is with gays and lesbians who take this view, whose resort in seeking human rights is that “the only difference is in the bedroom” – thus showing a willingness to leave behind those who don’t look straight (or in the case of transsexual separatists, “pass.”)

There are some transsexual separatists who also see “passing” as a factor – they believe that non-passable folks with HBS perhaps shouldn’t have surgery, because they make the passable ones look bad. (There are not too many transsexual separatists with this uncharitable view, but I have seen it expressed).

And yes, there are those "transsexual separatists" who object to the *term* "transsexual separatist." This may be because the term "separatist" has an odious bit of semantic baggage, though they'll indicate that they're not "separate" at all, just "not transgender." (Which, of course requires different definitions of the terms from those communly understood.)

So, is it possible that people can set aside their differences and work together? Is it possible for people to recognize that the “transgender umbrella” does not imply that “we are all the same” but only that “we all share a single characteristic even though we are all different?”

Perhaps not - there will probably always be some who feel a need for separatism. I hope they are and remain a tiny minority. I do hope it is possible to respect the differences while still accepting the umbrella – by looking to our commonalities rather than solely focusing on our differences, we can get farther together.

Going toe-to-toe with the Christianists

Today on one of my favorite blogs in the whole world, Pam’s House Blend, we get the otherwise cryptically-named article by Pam Spaulding herself entitled:

And Blankenhorn and Rauch think these people will compromise on marriage?

(The cryptic reference to Blankenhorn and Rauch is to an op-ed piece on compromise in federal recognition of civil unions that ran earlier in the week in The New York Times, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, by By DAVID BLANKENHORN and JONATHAN RAUCH
Published: February 21, 2009 )

I won’t go into the proposed “compromise” here – that’s not the thrust of Pam’s thoughtful essay.

What Pam writes about here is the right-wing Christianist rhetoric about gays that rings lodly in the halls of Congress and the inner recesses of our state legislatures. Today’s featured nutcase is Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe, a Republican from Greeley, Colorado.

Renfroe was quoted in opposition to a bill to grant insurance benefits to gay partners of state employees (a bill that passed in the Colorado Senate after his less-than-inspiring speech) as saying “I oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are. I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.”

What are Renfroe’s beliefs? He certainly can’t be a Christian. Then again, even Pope Benedict XVI isn’t really a Christian. People with the sort of belief about LGBT people that Renfroe has, if they claim to be Christians, are lying. They’re Christianists – people who pervert and twist the kerygma of the message of the Good News, and use it as a justification for attempting to take their bigoted feelings about people who are different from themselves, and make their bigotry the law of the land.

How do we deal with the Christianists? Toe to toe on the theological level.

Every time they cite Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

We should turn the other cheek with 1 Samuel 18:3:

“Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul”

and 1 Samuel 18:21 (KJV and most other translations are confused):

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain,"

giving the impression that David will be marrying one of Saul's two daughters. So let’s not use the old KJV or other mistranslations of this verse. The literal and accurate Darby gives us:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

The first time was with Saul's son Jonathan, the second with Saul's daughter Michal). That means David and Jonathan were married.

The American Standard version (ASV), also a reasonably good translation, differs from Darby in only two words:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

John Nelson Darby was the leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 1800s. He was extremely gifted in linguistics. Darby is reputed to be a very rich and accurate translation. By going to the available original language sources rather than translating from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, (Douay-Rheims does the best job of that, but most non-Catholic Christianists think that the KJV was "authorized" by God rather than King James . . . ), Darby gets to the essence of what otherwise looks like a completely fumbled passage. After all, when homophobes do the translating, they're more likely to try to obscure the meaning of anything quite as powerful an example of same-sex marriage clearly stated in the Bible as the sacred covenant between David and Jonathan.

How does this relate to Leviticus 18:22? Simply put, at worst this verse from the "holiness code" relates only to a single kind of male-male sexual activity. Some theologians will also link this prohibition to the story of Sodom, and indicate that it relates only to the practice of anal rape, commonly used in the ancient Near East as a way to humiliate a defeated enemy by "using him as one would use a woman" (which has nothing to do with a loving gay relationship). Others would link it to a prohibition of sacramental religious relations with transgendered priestesses of Near East agricultural goddesses (Astarte, Ishtar, etc.), relating more to Caananite religion as the forbidden "competition" for the Hebrews at the time of Leviticus.

The Christianists and their erroneous understanding of Sacred Scripture can be challenged, and should be challenged, on their own theological turf. Too often LGBT people will turn away from Christianity, thinking that the Christianists are the bearers of the Good News. They are not - they pervert the Bible with their Un-Chriatian foul bigotry spawned by Satan. Unless they repent they will be numbered among the goats on the Day of Judgment, asking in their confused false righteousness:

"Lord, when saw we thee . . .a stranger, . . . and have not ministered to thee?

Then shall he answer them saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have not done it to one of these least, neither have ye done it to me.

And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal."

- Mt. 25:44-46 (Darby)

This relates back to one of my favorite passages, Isaiah 56. I often will cite verses 3-5, but see 6-7:

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

- Isaiah 56:6-7 (KJV)

Strangers are not only those who are from foreign countries and cultures, but also those in our midst who are different by our natures or circumstances from the majority - whether it be based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Real Christians embrace the wonderful diversity in God's creation, while Christianists, even the Pope, abhor it. Like the men of Sodom, their desire is to obliterate us, to humiliate us, to deny us human rights and common decency, solely because we are different, because we are "strangers," because we are aliens in our own native land and culture.

McCain: Ignorance is Strength

It’s bad enough that Senator John McCain made a fighter-pilot “snap decision” without a great deal of thought in choosing Alaska Governor Sarah “Barracuda” Palin to be his vice president.

But John McCain has recently unveiled a sadly deceptive “attack ad” on the Obama record on education that makes it seem as if the McCain campaign is campaigning to keep our children ignorant in order to better protect sexual predators! In the McCain world of “social conservatism” it appears that the campaign slogan is now an Orwellian Ignorance is Strength.

This is a chilling reminder that the United States today has become uncomfortably more dystopian in a 1984 way, and that McCain and his sidekick Palin want to bring us more of the same.

McCain’s attack ad centers on a comprehensive sex education bill (referred to as Barack Obama's only accomplishment on education) that Barack Obama voted for in committee. This bill would have provided age-appropriate sex education to children in kindergarten - enough to allow them to know when a sexual predator has touched them inappropriately.

McCain's education attack ad is found on his campaign website here:

In the ad, we're told that this means "children are learning about sex before learning to read."

But we know that the “sex education” for kindergarten in the bill was designed to protect kids from pedophiles. The bill that McCain cynically attacks was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association, according to the New York Times:

John McCain should know that the bill would only have given kindergarteners enough information to help them protect themselves against being touched in the wrong places. If he approved the ad, which he did, he is presumed to know that. Ignorance is no excuse here.

Either he is lying, or he believes that a policy of keeping children ignorant to help protect pedophiles is a good thing!

Senator McCain appeared on The View on ABC yesterday, where I saw him stand by this ad, calling it “true” when challenged by Joy Behar. Is this what we want in a President? We already know that McCain and Palin don't support sex education in the schools, supporting "abstinence only" education that leads to teen pregnancy - and also opposing abortion - a double whammy against young women in America that McCain also confirmed during his View interview.

It only confirms the Orwellian slogan Ignorance is Strength will be the centerpiece of a McCain administration. We may as well unveil this as a new slogan for McCain:

McCain/Palin: Country First - Ignorance is Strength

It isn't just sex education and women's reproductive rights and health where McCain and Palin share the bedrock belief that Ignorance is Strength - the theme seems to permeate their campaign. The worst thing is that while Sarah Palin might be a "true believer" in Creationist nonsense, McCain seems to be quite willing to cynically use the ignorance of the bloc of American voters who really believe the world was created in six 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago, just to get elected. After all, even though it took some cheating (Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004) to put George W. Bush "over the top," reliance on this bloc of voters got Bush awfully close to actually winning rather than the bloodless coup d'etat we got. (Oops, I shouldn't be putting it quite that way, but that's essentially what really happened, if one looks carefully.)

McCain’s continuing support for this ad seems to prove that the Hero *IS* a Zero.

Now that we see that Ignorance is Strength fits the McCain Campaign, let’s take a look at the other two slogans from 1984, while we’re at it:

McCain/Palin: Country First - War is Peace

This seems to have been the Bush Doctrine in a nutshell – preemptively attack other countries for no legitimate reason, so we can fight “over there” instead of “at home.” McCain supports the illegitimate invasion and occupation of Iraq. He assumes that the war was right – in his ignorance, he doesn’t seem to understand that Iraq was not behind the events of 9/11 – it doesn’t matter that “the surge is working” when there should never have been a war in the first place. His running mate Sarah Palin is under the same delusion – is this what we need in the White House? We’ve been suffering from this idiocy since 2003, and it’s time for a real change - Obama/Biden, rather than the illusion of "change" that McCain/Palin would bring.

McCain/Palin: Country First - Slavery is Freedom

McCain and Palin’s “social conservatism” is ultimately all about the patriarchal thing: making women into babymaking slaves who have no reproductive choice even if they’ve been raped.

Their anti-human rights position for lesbian, gay, bi and transgender people continues the national shame where some Americans have more rights than others – and transgender people have fewer rights than anyone else.

Whoopi Goldberg reacted on The View to McCain’s ignorant or cynical promise to appoint the kind of strict constructionist judges who would interpret the Constitution the “way the Founding Fathers intended” – does McCain think we should return to slavery? Incredibly, John McCain smiled goofily and didn’t even bother to deny it. (While I don’t envision a return of African Americans to hereditary involuntary servitude, I do see the nightmare of a Supreme court with a couple more social conservatives joining with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito in rolling back civil rights to match the obstructive court interpretations from the 1870’s to 1890’s and even up to 1953. I have already seen what happens when those four are joined by Kennedy. Add one or two more like them, and we will be seeing judicial regression for the next thirty years.)

Shame on you, John McCain, shame on you! Whether you're an outright liar counting on the ignorance of the people, or you're ignorant yourself, you don't belong in the Oval Office.

Thoughts on the Dignity for All Students Act and the School Safety Act

First, I was quoted by The Advocate (online, August 19, 2008) in an article by Kerry Eleveld discussing the Safe Schools for All Students Act that was introduced by the Republican-controlled New York State Senate Rules Committee – notable for the first time any Republican-sponsored bill in New York has sought to protect people on the basis of “gender identity or expression.”

See the full article here.

Here's the part that quotes me:

Trans activists overall are pleased by the progress that has been made in the senate. “As a signal from the Republican leadership, the inclusion of gender identity or expression in the Safe Schools bill could be a ray of hope,” said Joann Prinzivalli, state director of the New York Transgender Rights Organization.

But Prinzivalli said one “disturbing” difference in the Republican bill is that it provides protection from disciplinary action or professional misconduct for school employees who know of, but do not report, acts of bullying. “This is not a feature in the [assembly’s] Dignity bill, and it makes the Safe Schools bill much less palatable as an alternative,” she added.

From a quite different viewpoint, the following comes from the Lunatic Fringe at (Out of) Focus on the Family:

New York Considers Special Rights for 'Transgendered' Students

The Republican majority in the New York Senate has introduced a measure that would make the state among the first in the nation to grant special protections to "transgendered" students, including those who cross-dress.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-activist group, is taking credit for the so-called Safe Schools for All Students Act. Disguised as an anti-bullying effort, it would add special protections based on sexual orientation.

“While efforts need to be made to stop the bullying of any child, we believe it’s wrong for schools to have mandates pushed on them by homosexual-advocacy groups," said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "These groups have been bragging about a 'coup' in New York and have a clear agenda of promoting their sexual lifestyle to children. “It is not wise to push those types of agendas onto young kids who are still figuring out who they are. Plus, it puts teachers who have deeply held religious convictions in jeopardy.”

North Carolina lawmakers rejected a similar bill in July.

Aside from the fact that the folks at (Out Of) Focus On The Family Action are always trying to push their anti-Christian, anti-humanitarian, anti-science, anti-human rights anti-justice anti-fairness agenda, one other thing these people don’t get is that this Republican-sponsored School Safety bill would add special protections for “teachers who have deeply held religious convictions.” If they bothered to read the bill carefully, the (Out Of) Focus folks might have seen this.

Both the Dignity for All Students Act (S1571, sponsored by Democratic State Senator Thomas K. Duane, and co-sponsored by eleven Democratic Senators, the Republican Rules Committee bill (S8739, the Safe Schools for All Students Act) require that school employees report incidents of harrassment/bullying of which they are aware or have reason to suspect. Both bills protect those school employees who report harrassment/bullying in good faith. But the Republican bill goes farther, adding:

FAILURE OF AN EMPLOYEE TO MAKE A REPORT PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH MAY NOT BE THE BASIS FOR ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT CHARGE AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE; (S8739, p2 lines 34-34)

It appears to be possible that the Republican senators really are trying to protect those (Out of) Focus “teachers who have deeply held ‘religious’ convictions” whose strange version of religion involves a belief that bullying and harassment of gay, transgender, tomboy and sissy kids is somehow a good thing.

The fact that “gender identity or expression” is properly included (under the definition of gender) as a protected class, in addition to sexual orientation, race, color, religion, disability, national origin, military status, sex, gender, age or marital status is lost on the bully-protecting folks at (Out of) Focus, who seem to think that it’s just fine for a schoolyard bully to pick on that nerdy sissy kid with glasses because in their warped sense of “religion” that’s what they think Jesus would have done (though I am quite sure Jesus would differ with that viewpoint, as they’ll find out when they get judged at the Final Judgment - see Matt. 25), or because bullying the sissy kid will somehow “make a man out of him.”

I had my own painful personal experience as a child with bullying and harassment, from the 5th grade until I got out of high school. It wasn’t a “sexual orientation” thing. It wasn’t even visibly a “gender identity or expression” thing – or maybe it was.

Essentially, I transferred into a new school in the middle of the school year, and somehow, the school bumped a very popular kid from the “A track” class to the “B track” class in order to fit me in. On top of that, when it came to schoolyard activity, it became obvious that I “throw like a girl.” This caused a great deal of resentment and led to a lot of harassment. I didn’t complain about it, but apparently teachers and administrators noticed, which prompted them to set up a meeting with my parents and the principal.

The proposed solution? My father was told that he and I should play catch after school every day. This was along the lines of “it’ll make a man out of him.” Of course, this turned out to be a very frustrating exercise for both my father and myself. No matter what I did, it *hurt* my elbow when I tried to “throw like a boy.”

The problem with this picture is that the traditional solution in these cases is to blame the victim, something the (Out of) Focus folks seem to want to continue as the solution.

The (Out of) Focus folks and the New York State Senate Republican-controlled Rules committee don’t seem to understand that teachers (and other school employees) who want to hide behind their so-called “religious beliefs” to justify bullying and harassment don’t belong in the schools, just like a teacher who believes in “Young Earth Creationism” shouldn’t be protected for teaching this religious belief in a science classroom.

One thought about this disturbing language in the Republican Senate bill (language perhaps intended to pander to (Out Of) Focus and its ilk) is that it was put there intentionally as a “poison pill” with the idea being the Senate could pass this bill and then kill a compromise with the Assembly Dignity for All Students Act bill (A3496 – the same as S1571) by insisting on protecting those teachers, school officials and employees who want to continue to turn a blind eye toward harassment and bullying. In this very cynical view, the Republican senators could trumpet about how they voted for (or even supported, if the bill doesn’t come to a vote) a “school safety” bill in their bids for re-election.

Most people wouldn’t even notice that the bill has a fatal flaw that eviscerates the coverage it would only seem to provide – the folks at (Out of) Focus On The Family Action didn’t notice that their so-called “concern” on the issue was already addressed by the Republican Rules committee.

Why Governor David Paterson "gets it" (and an afterthought as to how he doesn't)

Ever since I met New York Governor David Paterson some years ago when he was the New York State Senate minority leader, I knew that he "got it" about the need for legal recognition of transgender rights under the state human rights laws.

Just yesterday (Thursday, July 17, 2008), Governor Paterson gave a speech to attendees at the national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) held in Cincinnati, Ohio. In an interview given after the speech, he indirectly explained the context of how he came to this understanding, as he is quoted in the New York Times article cited above:

Governor Paterson’s views on discrimination have been shaped by the fact that he is both black and legally blind. He said one of the most painful experiences he had with discrimination came from a black businessman who refused to hire him because of his blindness.

"That’s when I realized this is kind of a universal problem that exists, this fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference," he said.

[citation: Paterson, at N.A.A.C.P., Warns of Racism’s Power, by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, published Friday July 18, 2008]

The impact of this insight is precisely the reason Governor Paterson has embraced and supported the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) and the Dignity for All Youth Act (DAYA), as well as the bill to make New York’s Marriage laws completely gender-neutral.

People who are transgendered, or gay, experience discrimination for the same reason that African-Americans still experience discrimination – it’s this, as he put it, "fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference."

It’s the reason a major title insurance company fired me as its chief underwriting counsel in January 2000. Just before Thanksgiving 1999, on my own time and after work, I testified at a public hearing, imploring Westchester County legislators to restore language that would have better clarified coverage for transgender people to the then-proposed county human rights bill. My testimony was televised on local and regional news, some lawyer in Long Island realized exactly who I was and called the company headquarters in Texas and asked "what kind of pervert do you have working for you?"

It took two board meetings, one for the national company and one for the New York subsidiary, but despite an excellent history of job performance, I became persona non grata at that company because by being "different" I sparked that visceral and instinctual "fear of the unknown" in the hearts of the company’s management – the same management that only a few months earlier was effusively praising my work.

In the meantime, I am hoping Governor Paterson issues an Executive Order some time soon that provides employment protection to transgender people in state employment - this is something the governor can do without waiting for the legislature. It's something trans community activists and allies were working on obtaining from former governor Eliot Spitzer's administration before he resigned. Now that the legislative session is over, perhaps Governor Paterson will be able to turn his attention to this bit of work.

Afterthought: During his N.A.A.C.P. convention speech, Governor Paterson took the time to condemn the recent satirical cover illustration from The New Yorker magazine, that depicted Senator and presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, as militant radicals seeking to destroy the United States. He called it "one of the most malignant, vicious covers of a magazine I have ever seen."

I wouldn’t condemn the magazine for running the cover – I know the magazine’s purpose was to show just how malignant and vicious the lies, innuendoes and false rumors some conservative Republicans have been spreading about Senator Obama and his wife – things like how he is supposedly a Muslim extremist, or that their "fist bump" is some kind of black radical secret handshake, or that the Senator was educated in a "madrassas" school (depicted as a fundamentalist Muslim school the teaches radical Islamost "Jihad against America" propaganda as part of its interpretation of the Holy Qu’ran, its only textbook).

By printing the cover, the magazine exposed the vicious lies to the light of day as exactly how ridiculous these are – and the reaction the cover has inspired is exactly the reaction intended by The New Yorker – except I think The New Yorker editors expected more sophisticated readers to understand that the cover itself, by being so "over the top" was intended as satire.

Governor Paterson is not alone in his condemnation of the magazine cover.

The reaction to the New Yorker cover is reminiscent of the reaction of abhorrence that another famous satire, a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, entitled A Modest Proposal, once evoked.

As with the cartoon cover, Swift had the experience of having some, including some rather sophisticated and intelligent people, take his satire seriously and react with abhorrence.

So in this instance, I’ll part with Governor Paterson, but only slightly, and condemn the malicious and repugnant lies that were satirized by the magazine cover, rather than the cover itself.

The Coverage of the Protest

Click here to go to a site where you can see the televised coverage of the protest.

The television coverage, on local Cablevision Newschannel 12 also includes clips from the county legislators' bad drag performance of You Gotta Have a Gimmick from the musical Gypsy.

There were three (and after the cameras left, a fourth arrived) protestors. The response was not bad for an action that was planned only 2-1/2 hours earlier.

There was also coverage in the local newspaper, The New York Journal News.

Responses on the http://www.lohud.com/ website ranged from supportive to clueless.

There has been internet coverage of the protest and the reasoning for it.

Click here for Autumn Sandeen's article that explains it all.

And for an interesting criticism by Monica Roberts of my analogy of the county legislators' performances to a "blackface minstrel show," click here.

As a note aimed at Monica Roberts commentary, I entirely agree with her about the performance of the performer "Shirley Q. Liquor" who actually combines bad blackface with bad drag, but I do think she may have missed my point - that the county legislators who were involved in the particular "dragface" show were criticized not because they are cissexual and straight, though those factors make it just a tad bit more offensive, but because they are all on the Westchester County Board of Legislators (and not only that, are on one of the committees that the bill has to get through before a vote) that has "dragged" its feet for more than eight years to get a simple technical amendment to the county human rights law passed, to clarify that the coverage afforded under the law does in fact cover transgender people.

Drag Show Protest Press Release

The New York Transgender Rights Organization

---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE--- ---PRESS RELEASE---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYTRO CONDEMNS COUNTY DRAG SHOW

White Plains, New York, June 13, 2008 – The New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO) protests the June 12, 2008 drag show organized by County legislator Bernice Spreckman, in which County legislators Ken Jenkins, Vito Pinto, and perhaps others, appeared in a mockery of transgender people to the laughs of an audience of seniors.
“The Westchester County legislature has failed for nearly eight years to amend the county human rights law to explicitly protect transgender people,” said Joann Prinzivalli, the state director of NYTRO and a White Plains resident. “It is shocking to see county legislators who have dragged their feet on this vital issue doing the equivalent of a KKK blackface show to mock my people.”

In 1999, former county legislators George Latimer and Andrea Stewart-Cousins, both now in the state legislature, promised to rectify the deficiency in the third draft of the original county human rights law enacted in December 1999. At the time, the language that would have protected transgender people was dropped from the bill as a compromise, according to Latimer, because this was requested by the New York Catholic Archdiocese Office of the Family. A bill to rectify the situation was actually introduced in 2005 by County legislator Lois Bronz, but went nowhere in committee.

A poll done by Global Strategy Group in February 2008 shows that statewide public support for legal protection of transgender people stands at 78% of registered voters. Last week, the New York State Assembly passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) by a vote of 108-33, with better than a two-thirds majority. Prinzivalli said “The public support is out there. The time has come for county government to get there ahead of the curve.”

The New York Transgender Rights Organizartion (NYTRO) is an unincorporated association with chapters around New York State. The organization is dedicated to advance the recognition of human rights of transgender and gender variant people, who are often subjected to the worst discrimination in employment, housing, insurance, medical care and public accommodations.

NYTRO State Director Joann Prinzivalli plans an unscheduled press conference at the steps to the (presently closed) main entrance to the Michaelian County Office on Martine Avenue in White Plains at 1:30 PM today, June 13, 2008.

- 30 -

Race v. Gender? Some thoughts on an e-mail supporting Hillary

On February 13, 2008, I received a very interesting e-mail from Marilyn Fitterman, NOW's Northeast Regional Director, indicating her support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In trying to find it via Google, I did not see it in any NOW website, but did find two references that quote it in full (and then there are added comments, not related to my own).

The first place is on a Blogger blog called XpatriatedTexan: A blog on faith and politics, by Thurman Hart:

"More Idiocy from NOW"

Mr. Hart's blog is subtitled: A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

The other is at Message 194 on page 13 in a thread entitled Hillary for President -- Part VI, in forum on the "Big Soccer" website (the message itself is at):

Yet another e-mail from New York State NOW

So I really don't have to repeat Ms. Fitterman's entire message here.

Her message, when I received it, moved me to respond - especially because the examples she gave as her rationale for supporting Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy resonated so well with me. I have used those very same examples (and others) from the experience of the civil rights struggles of women and African-Americans in my own advocacy work for LGBT issues. I often think of these as lessons of history.

So here is the text of my response to the message:

From: Joann Prinzivalli ((EML ADDRESS REDACTED)
Sent: Wed 2/13/08 12:13 PM
To: Marilyn Fittrerman, NOW NE Regional Director & Pas (EML ADDRESS REDACTED)

Thank you, Marilyn. I have myself on numerous occasions used the same historical perspectives you so eloquently set out in your message in different contexts.

In the case of the Married Women's Property Acts (in New York, 1848 for inheritance and 1860 for wages - Ernestine Rose and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started to work on the first bill in 1836), I often point out the reaction of conservative religious leaders of the time that enacting these laws would destroy the institution of marriage, when advocating for a gender-neutral marriage law.

The 50 year gap between the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, and the fact that women had to wait so long (as well as the nearly accidental last-minute inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is something I hope doesn't get repeated in another context, though it seems to be doing so - in December 2002, when the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was enacted, the transgender community was left behind by the legislature, and by the gay and lesbian community. The analogous bill, GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) is still struggling to gain passage in the allegedly "friendly" Democratically-controlled New York Assembly. Last year's shameful theatrics in the House of Representatives over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (originally HR 2015, but severely weakened and then passed by the House as HR 3685) seemed to be a reverse of what happened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I agree that Senator Clinton is the better choice for President, despite her poorly nuanced position on the repeal of the federal Defense Against Marriage Act (one point where Senator Obama's position is superior) - she supports only the repeal of the provision of 1 USC §7, pursuant to which the federal government is prohibited from recognizing certain marriages that may be legal in any of the states, but would leave intact 28 USC §1738C, which permits each state to refuse full faith and credit to certain marriages legal in other states. In addition, she does not appear to support an affirmative federal recognition of the same-sex marriages currently prohibited from recognition.

Senator Clinton got my vote in the New York primary on February 5th - but while my support is genuine, it is less than completely enthusiastic, considering that even in Hillary's view, I am only entitled to a third class status without all the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

Joann Prinzivalli
State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO)

PS: We really need to be doing more about (New York) Governor's Program Bill #16 - the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. Like GENDA, it hasn't moved anywhere in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. I understand that Assembly leadership is the current key bottleneck (though the bill has little chance in a Republican-controlled Senate with Senator Bruno having become recalcitrant on anything progressive since former State Senator Nick Spano lost his seat.)

J.

And I received a very nice response from her.

In this primary season, I am currently supporting Senator Clinton's candidacy, despite the reservations I expressed as to her poorly-nuanced view on the repeal of the Defense Against Marriage Act.

It isn't because she is a woman, or because Senator Obama is black. It's because I really do think she would ultimately do a better job in the presidency. However, If Senator Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president, he will get my support in the general election. I may have some personal respect for Senator McCain but he would not get my vote - I have too many issues with his positions. That respect was also eroded a bit by at least one sexist-seeming statement during the campaign where he didn't properly address a reference to Senator Clinton from a questioner as "that bitch" and laughed at the reference as if it was something funny. Surely, he would have received greater condemnation had he similarly laughingly sidestepped a racist reference to Senator Obama. (And I note, the McCain gaffe is something that wasn't even mentioned in Ms. Fitterman's e-mail message.)

I do have one last thought: I always thought is was a kind of institutionalized racism to think of "white" as if it has to mean somewhat with completely caucasian ancestry, while "black" includes people of mixed-race ancestry where one not-terribly-remote ancestor is negroid, though apparently having some known "Native American" ancestry seems to trump "black." Senator Obama's mom is "white," and pro golfer Tiger Woods'" mom is "asian." Both Senator Obama and Mr. Woods are usually thought of as being "black," but that is an identity that is placed on them by the lingering residue of white supremacist institutionalized racism. On the other hand, both men appear to identify that way themselves - and I don't think it is necessarily a matter of incorporating and internalizing the racism. The strangest thing is that it seems, from mitochondrial evidence, that every person in the world is descended from a single woman who lived 75,000 years ago in Africa.

Of course, I would prefer to be race-neutral as well as gender-neutral, and even the exclusionary racism of the "purity of whiteness" might be a little better than the sort of racial hierarchy that one finds in old, unenforceable real estate restrictive covenants, which are illegal and unenforceable under New York State and federal law (and perhaps the laws of most states). It's even illegal to reprint the words of the covenants in a title insurance commitment - references to racial covenants are limited to noting that they exist but are not enforceable. A copy of an instrument with the racial covenant has to be redacted to make the racial covenant unreadable.

One covenant I once ran into, regarding a subdivision in New Rochelle, New York, from the 1930's, prohibited any "negro, mullato, quadroon or octaroon," except domestic servants, from residing in homes built at the subdivision. While I had run into mulatto before, I surmised (correctly, as it turned out) that a "quadroon" would be an individual with a single black grandparent (or maybe two mulatto grandparents?), and an octaroon would have a single black great-grandparent (though if one is counting blood percentages, perhaps two black great-great grandparents might do, even if they weren't married to each other). This sort of racial slicing and dicing is reminiscent of the way Jewish ancestry was parsed by the agents of the Third Reich's "Final Solution."

I don't see the Democratic primary season as being a matter of race v. gender. That may be the spin some sophisticated pundits have tried to impose - and their best shot at that may have come when former President Clinton made some comments, or when Senator Clinton made a reference to the need for an LBJ as well as an MLK to get the civil rights act of 1964 passed. (The attempt at seeing that latter comment as racially divisive required a real stretch of the imagination).