LGBTQ on Marti Abernathey

Stop Gatekeeping Queerness Like You're Auditioning for the Conservatives You Hate

Mon, 07 Sep 2026 13:07:11 +0100

A lesbian writer who used to be a mutual of mine on several social media sites back in the 2000s turned up in a Gmail search. (I’m currently going through gigabytes of old emails and mass-deleting in preparation for shutting the account down entirely.) Curious, since I hadn’t heard that name in years, I looked up her socials. What do you know: TERF. “Why I’m Not Going to Pride” posts, complete with mentions of trans people and other queers as the reason why. Shocker.

On that note, I’m tired of people who center themselves as the definition of an identity and then gatekeep everyone else out of it. The last few days, the target has been lesbians. One person claimed that “real” lesbianism means never having been attracted to a person of the opposite sex, ever, and that people in twenty-year WLW relationships aren’t lesbians in that context if they were previously in a heterosexual relationship. What in the unholy gold-star-lesbian hell is this? Gatekeeping identity is ignorant. Y’all sound like the conservatives you marched in Pride to counterprotest.

Maybe it’s because I grew into my queerness around the foundational idea of the trans umbrella that I have a wider picture of what community boundaries — and gatekeeping them — actually entails. Maybe it’s because, even though my gender identity is fairly binary, I live in this body, and that gives me a wider vantage point too. There are times I feel like non-binary-identifying people take up too much space in trans spaces while ignoring their own cis privilege. But I would never say, “You’re not transgender, get out of my community.”

So what in the Milo Yiannopoulos are you doing? Sexual orientation isn’t a binary, and it never has been. I understand wanting to say “it’s not a choice,” but that framing isn’t healthy — it’s a fear- or shame-based response. The science on sexual orientation points to a mix of explanations, some social, some biological. But again, fixating on that origin story isn’t healthy either. What actually makes an orientation or relationship dynamic unhealthy is a lack of consent. Outside of that, all choices are morally equal.

Over time, I’ve realized that my own orientation is basically what people today call gynesexual: attraction to femininity, regardless of the sex of the person expressing it. I’ve genuinely wanted to be attracted to certain masculine men who were attracted to me, but it just wasn’t there. So I get the impulse to say it isn’t “a choice.” But I’m also not saying it’s strictly biological.Femininity itself is a social construct, built on layers of tradition and social expectation.

“Sexual orientation” is a big tent full of nuance, whether you like that or not. My real issue isn’t the nuance — it’s how toxic the gatekeeping becomes. Strip away the rhetoric, and what’s left is: “I’m gay because I was born this way. I can’t help it. There’s something wrong with me. It’s not my fault.“Screw that, all the way down to Shitsville, USA.

One more time, for the people in the back: your sexual orientation isn’t defective or morally bankrupt — unless it denies someone else’s agency or consent. Gatekeeping is dickheaded behaviour that serves no one, not even the gatekeeper.

Still the Same, Thirteen Years Later

Mon, 03 Aug 2026 20:04:25 +0100

Image by tove erbs from Pixabay

Even though I’ve been spending less and less time on TikTok, I’m seeing a discourse happening around bisexual men, and cisgender straight women not wanting to date them. MANY of the responses were claiming that bisexual men were trying to coerce straight women into dating them.

The responses reminded me of the reaction that many cisgender lesbians had to the “cotton ceiling” debate. It even made it onto the BBC, that trans women were forcing lesbians to date them.

In reality, the whole conversation revolved around bias, and asking people to examine their bias. That if a woman being trans was the only reason that you wouldn’t date her, that it was transphobic.

It would seem that cisgender women seem to have a hard time examining their biases. #transgender

The Greens are the Only Anti-Establishment Party

Tue, 14 Jul 2026 16:15:48 +0100

The Green Party is increasingly seen as the only viable alternative to the establishment parties in today’s political landscape. From the Canary: "Polling shows public see the Green Party as the anti-establishment party”.

Polling indicates that more voters perceive the Greens as a genuine option for those disillusioned with traditional political structures. This perception holds significant weight, especially when considering that many members of the Reform Party are former Conservatives. They had their chance to effect change but chose to uphold the status quo instead.

Reform’s current strategy is to pretend it’s anti-establishment, but it’s crucial to recognize that it isn’t. In almost every policy, it embodies the establishment views. The few policies where they DO differ from the esbablishment, it’s to the deteriment of the country. Immigration is mostly a net positive.

Cognitive biases run deep, as evidenced by Reform supporters dismissing large donations—such as the £5 million from cryptocurrency investors to Nigel Farage—while insisting he isn’t part of the corrupt establishment. This blind loyalty resembles a sports team mentality, where personal allegiance outweighs critical analysis. In contrast, the Green Party stands out by genuinely advocating for transformative change. Regardless of whether one believes in their approach, they are the only party actively proposing a path forward that deviates from entrenched political norms.

The parallels between Reform’s strategy with Donald Trump’s promises are striking; he vowed to transform lives but ultimately fell short, focusing on scapegoating marginalized groups like immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community rather than proposing substantial solutions. The Reform Party is positioning itself as anti-establishment while fundamentally supporting the very policies that maintain existing power dynamics. There’s nothing anti-establishment about them.

#GreenParty #PoliticalChange #StatusQuo #ReformParty #EstablishmentPolitics

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:08:27 +0100

MAGA is an emotional movement by @transworld@masto.ai

Trump officials have warned that transgender troops weaken the force, but a new review of open service tells a different story.https://www.advocate.com/military/the-power-of-trans-servicepeople#transgender #trans #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA

There’s no logic/reason behind what #MAGA does, it’s 100% feelings.

Time Marches On: Trans Edition

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:06:15 +0100

I was alerted to the passing of Jeri Hughes, by my friend Ethan St. Pierre. It comes a day after watching a video of a trans person referring to themselves as a trans elder when they transitioned in 2020. It’s made me reflect on how many of my fellow (actual) trans elders have died and how the community is less, because of it.

When I started the Transadvocate blog back in 2002, it was a response to the pain and loss I felt after coming out as transgender in 2001. I didn’t realise it at the time, but that action changed my life forever. It brought people into my life like Monica Roberts, Ethan St Pierre, Rebecca Juro, Christian Grantham, and many others that would impact the trajectory of my life, and the transgender community.

Many of those people get very little mention today. Every time I see the trans flag, I think of Monica Helms.

But scarcely any a peep is said of Helms these days. So much of the history of the movement, during my time in it, doesn’t see much light.

I didn’t realise it until recently, but Rusty Mae Moore died back in 2022. She and her partner, Chelsea Goodwin, created Transy House.

“Transy House was a transgender collective operated by Rusty Mae Moore and Chelsea Goodwin from 1995 to 2008.”

“It provided shelter for trans, gender variant, and non-binary people in need, served as a center for trans activism, and was the last residence of pioneering LGBT rights activist Sylvia Rivera.”

Any time I see a young trans person living their best life, I think of the work that we did back then to lay the foundation so that they could walk. It’s the best thing we ever did, and so many of them will never know we did it.

Time marches on.

Understanding Migrant Sex Workers' Struggles: Reading "Not Your Rescue Project"

Fri, 13 Dec 2024 04:04:38 +0100

I'm reading "Not Your Rescue Project: Migrant Sex Workers Fighting for Justice" There are books that I get a hold of that I have to read more than once, and this is one of those books.

"When most people think about migrant sex workers, they think of them not as humans, but as objects of grave moral concern. Not as powerful and capable community members, but as social problems."

You can insert the homeless, sex workers, transgender people, or any other oppressed minority there, and it still works. The people at the center of any of these issues aren't the main focus of the saviors. They are seen as objects to save. The debates rarely include real voices of the people involved.

Like other working-class people, migrant sex workers suffer poor working conditions under capitalism. When migrant sex workers face exploitation at work, this is labor exploitation.When they face abuse at work, this is labor abuse or violence against workers. When they are forced to sell sex (or to sell sex in ways that they do not want to), this is forced labor. Their problems are worker problems.

The book explains a lot of the history of anti-trafficking laws in the USA, and it's roots in white supremacy:

Chinese migrant women were also some of the first targets of anti-trafficking laws, under which they were subjected to immigration investigations on whether they were being trafficked “for lewd and immoral purposes.” In 1910, the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act to target sex-trafficking rings and to protect white girls from forced prostitution that they were lured into by “foreign immigrant traffickers.”

and

They face racist immigration restrictions and hostility from white supremacist countries that view them as permanent outsiders and expect them to be servile and impoverished, performing the backbreaking jobs that white people don’t want, without a right to citizenship, labor protections, or full participation in democratic governance. White supremacy frames migrant sex workers as a social problem and as a dangerous threat to Western values, families, and border security.

and explains how the anti-trafficking industry is a tool of the state to enact violence upon migrant sex workers:

Criminalization through anti-trafficking policies allows the state to emerge as the great “rescuer,” while leaving migrant sex workers more susceptible to violence and exploitation. Mimicking the “white slave panic” of earlier eras, today’s trafficking discourses are framed in the language of “modern-day slavery.” This white supremacist saviordom is a gross and glaring appropriation of Black liberation struggles to enable the very thing that abolition is opposed to: increased criminalization and violence.

The premise of anti-trafficking laws is that because vulnerable women and girls are “trafficked” against their will, they must be “sent back.” Like the oxymoron of feminist jails, these are supposedly “feminist deportations.” This state violence is gender-based violence. And ironically, this kind of coerced “rescue” seems a lot like actual trafficking. The purpose of anti-trafficking measures, then, is not to support migrant sex workers but to increase policing and to restrict the free movement and labor of migrant women.

That migrant sex workers suffer under capitalism in the same way that all working class people do.

Under conditions of poverty, limited opportunities, and social inequality, workers make choices about their best options. This includes migrant sex workers. Other labor activists do not need to prove that workers are capable of consenting to their labor, even though capitalism forces everyone to work to survive.

It’s not that sex work is necessarily good, it’s that it can often be better than other work. The jobs available to low-income racialized migrants in other sectors are some of the worst jobs in the world. Work in agricultural, manufacturing, construction, warehouse, and domestic labor sectors is notoriously poorly paid, punitive, relentless, exploitative, and dangerous.

When the alternative is deportation, arrest, and poverty, millions of migrants are coerced into brutally exploitative labor contracts. Migrant worker activists including, Harsha Walia, have described these conditions as modern indentureship, and in some cases, “systemic slavery.” The conditions of these work permits are deceptive, coercive, and unfree.

And discuss what a danger that "anti-trafficking" NGOs are to migrant sex workers:

In reality, anti-trafficking nonprofits do not combat human trafficking, violence, exploitation, and coercion in the sex industry; they facilitate, enhance, and expand state violence.

They are aligned not with a social justice movement fighting gender-based violence and “modern slavery,” but with right-wing and carceral feminist movements that are opposed to racial, social, and economic justice.

The anti-trafficking industry must be delegitimized, defunded, and abolished. It is designed for social control, and because it is founded on white supremacy, sexism, and state violence, it cannot be reformed.

and how SWERF/TERF feminism is and has always been a right of center operation that has held hands with conservative evangelicals.

Feminist anti-trafficking organizations work with these extremist anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ groups and with anti-trans feminists. One of the larger feminist, anti-trafficking and anti–sex work organizations in the US is World Without Exploitation (WWE), which leads campaigns against the decriminalization of sex work across the country and works in coalition with far-right Christian organizations, including NCOSE and Exodus Cry (whose founder describes Planned Parenthood as “Planned Assassination”).7 WWE is a US-based project of the Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women, the first anti-trafficking NGO of the modern era, which was shaped and formerly led by Janice Raymond, one of the leading architects of both trans-exclusive feminism and sex work–exclusive feminism.

Anti–sex work feminists are not “abolitionists.” They are prohibitionists who advocate for a type of criminalization and law enforcement that they claim is feminist.

Anti–sex work feminists do not join migrant sex workers in their campaigns for fair working conditions or safe migration, but instead organize against those campaigns.

They call for more rights for sex workers

Migrant sex workers must have control over their movement—and that means the power, resources, and information they need to reduce the risks and vulnerability that accompany different stages of migration.

No migrant workers, including sex workers, should be forced into exploitative temporary work visas, nor should they have their mobility tied to any employer.

and call the trafficking non-profit industry for what it is... an arm of the state who perpetuate harm of migrant sex workers, not rescue them.

In a time of escalating fascism, this book urges us to refuse right-wing, fear-mongering moral panics. Lam and Gallant drive home that the issue we should be concerned with is not trafficking or victim narratives (what they say function as “a concealed form of state violence”) but, rather, the control of migration, the criminalization of sex work, the exploitation of labor relations within capitalism, and the circuits of empire that manufacture vulnerability.

It was an eye-opening read from people organizing on the ground, helping, collaborating, and listening to migrant sex workers.

SWERFin' and TERFin'

Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:56:02 +0100

When it comes to the sex work industry commentary on social media, it seems like the critics are big on speaking about the dangers of trafficking (many times conflating trafficking and sex work) but very quiet when it comes to the underlying causes of why the most toxic parts of it exist.

I really can't give much space in my head to those who voice their concerns about coercion in sex work but refuse to acknowledge the primary pillar of that coercion. Capitalism is at the core of the coercion they are constantly concerned about, but they never acknowledge it. Sex work is an industry for a lot of vulnerable people who wouldn't be able to survive without it. The root of that coercion that they're SO concerned about is based on actual material need. The ignorance of the root cause and focus on the people impacted feels like "I don't want to see you exist because of how I feel". It's a mixture of privilege and sanctimoniousness without genuine care or sympathy for the people doing it or providing a real alternative.

I'm not a sex worker, but I find a lot of reasons to form solidarity bonds with them. It's a common theme put upon marginalised communities, saying, "I feel icky about sex work (or trans people, or gay people, or immigrants, etc.), and they should just go away so I don't have to see them." Be clear about your intent: you don't want marginalised communities to exist, but if we do, you want us to suffer.

Drag isn't a Gender Identity, it's a Performance

Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:08:19 +0100

When I was a small child, the local morning television children's shows often had events where they would read children's stories or sign autographs.

In 2019 when I started writing this post (it's pretty much sat in my drafts since then), there was a problem with performers reading to children. Well, it was only a problem if they're drag queens. Now it's gotten to the point where people are calling parents that take kids to these events "groomers" and that drag is inherently sexual.

What kind of 80's Footloose fever dream is this?

It's like saying that musicals are sexual

"because Chicago." Art is sexual when its content is of a sexual nature. There's nothing inherent to drag that makes it sexual. It's just a type of performance art.

Proud Boys think they're some sort of cultural heroes by attacking Drag Queen Story Hour. But in reality, they're just the Reverend Shaw Moore (the fanatical pastor who gets dancing banned in the movie "Footloose").

Understanding Privilege in Atheist Spaces

Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:37:07 +0100

The genesis of this post is from a comment I left on The Thinking Atheist Podcast page. The host, Seth Andrews, invited various people on his podcast to talk about "Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces." One of the guests was Bill Ligertwood, a conference organizer with the Imagine No Religion conference

So here's where I come from. I'm a white trans woman. I'm middle class. I went to college before transition and have a decent life making decent money. I don't worry for much in terms of material things. I lived and grew up in mainly white culture (my grandfather was a Klansman). I never met another transgender person (the opposite of transgender is cisgender) until after I transitioned. Being a trans woman, I was male-identified at birth. Up to the point of transition, I'd been enmeshed in men's culture. Positionally in terms of socialisation, I was seen as a member of "white cis bro culture."

Living in Indiana, I was one of those "libertarian" Republicans that believed life was a level playing field and that if you just applied yourself, you'd succeed. This wasn't a belief I had tested or reasoned; it was just a feeling I had. Back then, talk of privilege wasn't commonplace in my circle of friends. I certainly didn't spend any of my time thinking about it. When I transitioned, I lost cisgender, heterosexual and male privilege and had to actually confront the loss of something I didn't think existed.

So when I'm talking about "white cis bro culture", it's essentially a discussion about white, cisgender, heterosexual, male privilege. It's not just displayed at atheist conferences but in the atheist community as a whole.

The last atheist conference I attended was the Secular Women's conference, but I stay way away from conferences for the most part because they are rife with white cis-het bro culture.

I don't go to conferences that invite Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Lawrence Krauss as guests. Not because I have a problem with their scepticism, but a problem with their displays (Shermer, Dawkins, Krauss, Harris) of sexism/misogyny/islamophobia.

From the interview:

Andrews: "You wanted to weigh in on this because you have an opinion, a perspective. You approached me and said 'I want to talk about the challenges that I'm facing in this culture when it comes to conference organisation.' You're finding it harder to do what you do, in what you might call an 'offence culture." A 'taking offence' culture. You want to flesh that out for me?"

Ligertwood: "Yea, sure. Well, we're talking about safe spaces, and what we're trying to do, obviously, at a conference is create one. We're trying to create a safe space for people of our persuasion. In other words, unbelievers, atheists, what have you, a place where they can come and not be worried about someone finding out, ot worried about someone that's going to take a strip off them because they're not believers. So that's, first of all that's what I think we're trying to do. What makes that really difficult now is that it doesn't seem to take much to make it is that actually quite safe, unsafe just because somebody takes offence to something that one of the speakers said once in a tweet or whatever, years ago, months ago, days ago, hours ago, it doesn't really matter. It just seems like people take offence to almost anything these days and it seems like once you go off the path, once you go stray from the dogma, which is what I thought we were all interested in doing, is straying from the dogma. But once you stray from this new dogma, you're in the out group. People will boycott our event. People will boycott anything you're at are because you said something or someone said something about you and it's instantly, yeah, the safe spaces isn't safe anymore, so people won't come."

Taking that apart, I read that as:

"Just because Dawkins made sexist comments with 'Muslima,' people shouldn't boycott our conference if we invite him."

First off, a boycott is a form of free speech. Secondly, dogma is misused here by Ligertwood. According to Merriam-Webster, dogma is:

1. a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2. a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

It seems like Ligertwood is using 1a and c in reference to his point. Fleshing that out in the context of Dawkin's Muslima comments makes no sense. What is the dogma here? Is it the "new dogma" to acknowledge sexist tweets of thought leaders in the atheist/sceptic movement?

There's an underlying message that Dawkins is a magic man with knowledge so unique, it can only be gained by listening to him. That may have been true in 1975, but it isn't now. I've stated before that there seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde side to Dawkins. Attendance at a conference (or buying of a book of his, for that matter) supports both his Jekyll and his Hyde. There's the brilliant evolutionary biologist who wrote "The Selfish Gene." But then there's the crotchety old grandpa who will tell you that sexism isn't that bad because Muslim women in Saudi Arabia can't drive or that "mild paedophilia" isn't harmful.

I don't buy cakes from bakers who won't make wedding cakes for gay men for the same reason (no matter how delicious they are). That isn't a rejection of the baker's confectionary skill, but their bigotry. There are plenty of other "bakers" in the atheist community that are not sexist that I can (and do) give my time/audience with/money to.

Ligertwood seems to be angry that people will "boycott" his conference because of "tweets." He seems angry that another person's free speech (boycott) will make his job of conference organizing harder. Given that conferences generally cost to attend and are not mandatory, I'm not sure where his beef is with me exercising my own free will over my own pocketbook. Yes, I'm an atheist, but I value my own time, talent, and treasure enough to take it to places and spaces that value me. Mr Ligertwood won't have to worry about catering to me for his conference. I'll stick with listening to my favourite atheist podcasts (The Thinking Atheist, The Atheist Experience), reading Greta Christina, and supporting people involved with Secular Women. That's as far as I'll dip my toes in the atheist community because I don't have to do any more than that. Support isn't something atheist communities or conferences are owed.

Atheists are a marginalised community, even though it's hard for many cis white men to comprehend. The only thing I can work out with Ligertwood is that his frustration might stem from his own privilege. There is such a thing as "Christian privilege", and those things impact atheist's lives. The truth is hard for white cisgender men who have never had to face up and acknowledge their own privilege in other areas. Would Ligertwood be against atheists who refuse to shop at Hobby Lobby or eat Chick-fil-A? Boycotts are a powerful change agent. But Ligertwood's words seem to express that old saying that "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Suicide, Leelah Alcorn, and Living Openly Trans*

Fri, 02 Jan 2015 12:37:57 +0100

I’ve kept quiet much for the last few months because I’ve been mourning a loss, the equal I can only compare losing my father at age 11. I’m not going to share the particulars of this loss because it doesn’t really matter in the context of this post, and secondly because it’s extremely personal. But emotionally I’ve been hampered a bit in just getting by day to day. I’m just trying to work out a plan for my future and try to do all the things people do when they’re mourning a huge loss. Trying to move on when you don’t really want to.

The holidays haven’t made it any easier. My circle of friends in Madison, Wisconsin is small. This is the first Christmas without my partner. I’ve just been putting my head down, going to work, and trying to make it through.

And then I read the suicide note of a trans teen, Leelah Acorn. Her parents tried Jesusing the the trans out of her to the point she killed herself. Some cis-gender (not trans*) people (especially those people that can’t bring themselves to call trans women, women but feel the need to call them “penised individuals") have suggested that it’s irresponsible to post Leelah’s suicide note.

This is thorny territory for me personally. When I read it, it did trigger me. I’ve been pretty much staying away from social media the last few days because of her suicide. In her suicide note she said:

"I have decided I’ve had enough. I’m never going to transition successfully, even when I move out. I’m never going to be happy with the way I look or sound. I’m never going to have enough friends to satisfy me. I’m never going to have enough love to satisfy me. I’m never going to find a man who loves me. I’m never going to be happy. Either I live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself. There’s no winning. There’s no way out. I’m sad enough already, I don’t need my life to get any worse. People say “it gets better” but that isn’t true in my case. It gets worse. Each day I get worse."

That part of her note pierced through me like a knife. I understand her pain, because I feel like I am the embodiment of the comments of her future. I'm a visibly trans woman that struggles every day. As I said to a friend after this story broke:

"I'm not clinically depressed or having suicidal ideation. I'm currently mourning a loss and been having dysphoria related issues lately. Basically I'm the person she said she didn't want to live to be. That was a huge punch to the gut."

and

"I'm not saying it for hugs or attention (but thanks for the love), but that it's just hard. Especially what she said about it not getting better. If you don't have cis-privilege, life is fucking hard being openly trans."

But I don't think it's irresponsible to publish her note. I think it's wise and compassionate to warn people with "trigger warnings". But for someone that routinely fights for the right to exclude trans women from "female only" spaces without one shred of evidence that trans women are a threat (regardless of their genital status), I find Ditum's words to be both disingenuous and oppressive.

Irresponsible? That would be the Philadelphia Gay News publishing a story about an underage child’s genitals. Irresponsible would be the Statesman asking a TERF who openly mocks trans women to write a piece on a trans child’s suicide.

The answer to transphobia that leads to suicide isn’t more transphobia. The answer to transphobia isn’t silence. Not talking about it isn’t going to make it go away. Trans reparative therapy isn’t going to suddenly go away on its own. It needs to be talked about and people need to know how awful and destructive it is.

She says:

“Trans lives matter. We know that transgender people are at particular risk of suicidal thoughts. So why are people endorsing and sharing material that, if it has any effect at all, is likely to be the catalyst for a trans youth to attempt suicide?”

Ditum’s pity feels a lot like the pity trans people get from Focus on the Family. She knows that trans people are at particularly at risk for suicidal thoughts, but never seems to ask why. I’m suffering every day as a visibly trans person, and it’s not because I’m mentally ill or because I’m diagnosed with any sort of depression. It’s because being visibly trans in this world IS A HARD LIFE. It’s because there are people that other us, disrespect us, and objectify us on a daily (and sometimes hourly) basis.

The answer isn’t silence, it’s education. The answer isn’t fear mongering, mis-gendering, or “gender nerd snark”, it’s treating trans people with respect and human dignity. It boils down to just letting trans people live their lives authentically without being attacked for who they are. Ditum and folks like her aren’t part of the answer, they’re part of the problem.

Media Barr Roseanne From Criticizing Cosby, But Trans Women HELL YES!

Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:45:32 +0100

Apparently the media think it’s news that Roseanne Barr has made some rather lewd comments about Bill Cosby, who:

"Several women in recent weeks have come forward to claim the comedian drugged and raped them or touched them inappropriately in past decades."

But when Roseanne said some really horrible stuff about trans people? The media was and is silent.

What did I learn today? The same thing I learn most days. Trans people’s lives aren’t worth much at all.

Climate Change and the Search for Truth

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:18:40 +0100

(Recently on a progressive e-list I’m on a person pointed to the work done by Science and Public Policy Institute and suggested that we “learn the truth” about climate change. The following is my response to him)

When someone claims to hold the truth to a question I tend to want to believe them. In my own life I want truth more than anything, so I my nature is to want to believe what people say. In third grade Ricky Crawford told me that his father worked for NASA and that his father had told him secretly that aliens from Pluto were attacking and would be here in three days. For three days I cried a lot, hid a lot, and waited for news to break that the aliens were attacking. When I realized that I’d been tricked, I trusted other people a lot less.

I’ve found consistently through my life that though I want to believe what people say, I have to dig down and see if there is a more sinister or politically motivated reason underneath. Many people (Christian creationists, for example) start with a belief and amass data to support their belief while dismissing anything that doesn’t support their beliefs.

The Science and Public Policy Institute sounds as credible in the same way that President Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative. But according to SourceWatch wiki:

"The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President"
“Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute."

The Frontiers of Freedom Institute:

"Since our founding, Frontiers has grown from a start-up organization with big ideas to a preeminent think tank that is making a real and tangible difference advancing common sense ideas for government. One of our greatest sources of pride has been our position on the front lines in the battle to make a national missile defense system a reality. Our efforts earned us a seat across the table, literally, from President Bush on the day he announced our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Dundes Wolfowitz. We are proud to be considered an asset to the national security community during these times of serious global insecurity."
FoF groups its work under the banner of six “policy centers”:

Center for Constitutional Government

Center for Economic Liberty and Property Rights

Center for National Security and Defense

Center for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation

Center for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress

Center for Science and Public Policy

and receive funding by:

Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

Even if you look past the the dubious past of the founder, the “science” relies heavily on the work of Christopher Monckton who:

"is the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom."

who is a media darling of the right wing.

A post about one of his published works at the Guardian makes the point better than I can:

"Published in two parts on consecutive Sundays, it runs to a total of 52 pages, containing graphs, tables and references. To my correspondents, to a good many journalists and to thousands of delighted bloggers, this paper clinches it: climate change is a hoax perpetrated by a leftwing conspiracy coordinated by the United Nations.
So which was the august journal that published it? Science? Nature? Geophysical Research Letters? Not quite. It was the Sunday Telegraph. In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in that publication, it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist.

The author of this “research article” is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing ‘the truth’ “

and

"A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field. This doesn't suggest that it's the last word on the subject, but it does mean it is worth discussing. For newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph the test seems to be much simpler. If they don't understand it, it must be science."

I'm always dubious of anyone that claims to have "the truth". IMO, the truth is something to be eternally searched for but never found in total. At the very core of any honest search for truth is a commitment to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if it's to a place you don't think it should or would.

Or we could listen to the Ricky Crawfords of the world…..

Post of the Day

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:54:19 +0100

Post of the day goes to one of my favorite local bloggers, Steph Mineart:

"In reality, religious people seem more obsessed with anal intercourse than gay people are. So here's the thing, for all you religious homobigots out there - it's not about the butt sex. Really. And if you so obsessed with it, please just go off and do it yourself, rather than trying to bash us because of your obsessions with your own sphincter.

I want to propose that this year when people are testifying about SJR-7 and some of the other legislation related to gay issues, that we play "Butt Sex Bingo" - create a grid of all of the cliched arguments that the religious nuts trot out, with Anal Intercourse being the bonus in the center square (how apropo!). And when they get up to testify, mark off every argument, until they trot out the bonus free space -- when everyone shouts "Bingo!" at the same time, it will truly highlight how absurd they are."

(link)

MYSPACE: The New AOL

Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:19:40 +0100

Sheesh. Let’s go to the Ole Myspace mailbag, shall we? “hey babe,

my names john, i am a 22 yr old from chicago. I am very outgoing and willing to try anything once. I am a chef and curently going to culinary school. I have pics, but for now i am 5'7'' tan athletic body brn eyes n hair 150 pnds, and italian. I just wanted to tell you that you are georgeous and i’d love to talk to u. Also i am very very bi curious. hehe. Could i have your yahoo id so we could chat more, or aol? Thanks hope to hear from you soon! - John”

“YEA YEA YEA….

I KNOW I DON’T KNOW YOU AND YOU DON’T KNOW ME. SO WE GOT THAT SETTLED. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO YOURS AND YOU ADDED TO MINE…. ADDING AS A FRIEND, I’AM NOT GOOD AT THIS….

SO HOW DOES THAT SOUND! I KNOW I KNOW I’AM SORRY I COULD’NT SELL YOU INSURANCE WITH THAT STUFF. I KNOW! IT’S THE WAY YOU PUT THINGS MAINLY IN THE PART ABOUT YOUR SELF

P.S MY NAME IS JEFF

HOLLA BACK

I REALLY WANT CHAT WITH YOU I KNOW IT’S GONNA BE SILLY . I FILL A BATTLE COMING ON————– BETWEEN WORDS JUST FOR FUN “

“hi who are you doing tonight wanna chat hit me back -Gregg” “want 9 inches? - K-Bo” Sheesh. No wonder good men are hard to find.

But I saved the best for last….

“hey i can accept you being lesbian as long as your with me. sincerly ronnie i live in indy east side 632-2XXX” - Ronnie

Why Reason and Fact Don't Matter

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:27:03 +0100

It’s obvious to me that evangelical right wing Christians don’t care about fact or reason… in fact they don’t care about children either. USA Today recently wrote a story about how gay adoption bans in are being considered in 16 states. No mind that there are 120,000 children in foster care and only 50,000 find permanent homes each year. Never mind that American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, and the American Psychiatric Association provide statistical data that shows that gay and lesbian parents are just as fit and parent just as well as their heterosexual counterparts.

Gays and lesbians shouldn’t be parents! Why? Because Jesus said so!

The Republican Utopia

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:28:22 +0100

Listening to Mitch Daniels answer questions on the radio on Wednesday night, he lost my vote in the next election. I’m quite the liberal/progressive when it comes to my political beliefs. Even so, last election I voted for Mitch Daniels for Governor. Why? The Kernan administration refused to discuss their position on gay marriage. Kernan kept saying that a marriage amendment wasn’t needed. I asked a direct question to the campaign as to where Governor Kernan stood if a marriage amendment was found to be “needed.” When pressed about this, the administration simply responded that the republicans were BAD and Democrats were GOOD. Mitch Daniels met with the gay community and addressed tough questions openly and honestly, which Governor Kernan refused to do. My thought process went something like “if Mitch was the same on marriage issues as Kernan, what is the difference between the two?” When I listened to both campaigns, I heard Mitch say what he planned on doing about the economy, about the state budget deficit, and property tax reform. Kernan just attacked Daniels about what he had done at while at Lilly’s, and IPL, but put forth no real plan to pull the state out of the financial gutter. I simply heard the campaign smear Daniels while not putting forth any new ideas. So I voted for Mitch….

But after his first year in office I can say that I won’t vote for him again. He removed collective bargaining for state employees and spent way too much time on moving Indiana to Daylight Saving Time (and I might add that he’s not been following DOT regulations concerning the changes… before GW they called that breaking the law…). Those things were definitely nails in the coffin. But what nailed it shut was his comments at a Town Hall meeting broadcast on Network Indiana/WISH-TV on Wednesday night. When asked why he hadn’t asked for full day kindergarten, he responded that we just don’t have the money for it. He said that maybe we could do it once we’re out of debt. If this were a business, Mitch’s answer would be a good one. But state government shouldn’t be run like a business. The mistakes made in government don’t effect a bottom line, they effect peoples lives. A good example of Mitch’s “business approach” in government is found at his time as head of the Office of Management and Budget (the OMB sets the administration’s annual budget goals) in the first GW Bush administration. His nickname at the time was “The Blade.” In 2002, Mike Parker, the former head of the Army Corps of Engineers, was forced to resign over budget disagreements with Mitch. He said “One time I took two pieces of steel into Mitch Daniels office. They were exactly the same pieces of steel, except one had been under water in a Mississippi lock for more than 30 years, and the other one was new. The first piece was completely corroded and falling apart because of lack of funding. I said ‘Mitch, it doesn’t matter if a terrorist blows the lock up or if it falls down because it disintegrates – either way it’s the same effect, and if we let it fall down, we have only ourselves to blame.’ It made no impact on him whatsoever.” Studies have shown that full day kindergarten and Head Start programs improve learning for low-income families and children with disabilities. So what does Mitch see as the most important thing on the legislative agenda for the next year? Construction of the I-69 road project…?????? His reasoning is that building roads brings jobs to the state. What kind of jobs would be dependent on a interstate roadway? I doubt they’d bring in too many high paying tech jobs to the state.

If you don’t invest money in children on the front end, how can you expect to develop a well educated, high tech work force in Indiana? Not funding all day kindergarten but funding a controversial road project is penny wise, pound foolish. I’m sorry Mitch, but our kids are worth more than a damn interstate. If you can’t see that then you’re not as smart as I thought you were. I’ll be smarter next time you’re up for reelection. Too bad they didn’t have all day kindergarten when I was a child. Maybe I wouldn’t have made the mistake of voting for you, Mr. Daniels.

Jesus Said "LOVE!"

Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:52:01 +0100

In response to the “No Comparison” blog entry at the Indy Star, “Joi” said

"my religious beliefs are against the act of homosexuality, but I LOVE YOU ANYWAY, just as Jesus loves you."

S/he went on to say that

"HOWEVER, injustice is injustice. This country lacks a whole lot of LOVE and RESPECT! Why should I care who you choose to sleep with, just like why should you care about the color of my skin? It SHOULDN'T MATTER!!! NO ONE deserves to be discriminated against based on race or sexual orientation. PERIOD!"

I responded with the following email:

"AMEN! I can't believe how some Christians defend their hatred by use of scripture. It's reminiscent of how the Bible to defend slavery. Love and compassion aren't bound by law. Allowing hatred, bigotry, and discrimination to happen to anyone is and never has been love.
Arguing who has been discriminated worse, does not benefit anyone. Is there a difference in the murders of Mr. James Byrd Jr.( His throat was cut, then he was chained by his ankles to a pickup and dragged to pieces along three miles of road), Gwen Araujo (she was struck on the head with a soup can, then struck again with a frying pan so hard that the blow caused her head to make a hole through an adjacent wall. She was then taken to the garage and strangled with a rope, hog-tied, wrapped in a blanket, and placed in the bed of a pick-up truck. Four of the men drove her body to a wooded area in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada where she was finally buried in a shallow grave) or 15 year old Sakia Gunn ( who was murdered on the streets of Newark because she admitted to being a lesbian)? I think not.

Martin Luther King Jr said"Life’s most urgent question is: What are you doing for others?" In Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus Christ said much the same thing when he was asked what the greatest commandment was. He said ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Little else needs to be said."

Little else besides the fact that S/he has given me hope that Christ’s love and compassion truly is manifested in a few Americans.

Salem Aint Got Nothin on Indy!

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:38:32 +0100

For you Indiana locals… did y’all catch the News at 6 on WRTV? Norm Cox did an interview with Pepper Partin about the planned protest at the The Annual Irvington Halloween Festival (you can read about the festival at Indyscribe ). The protest is being organized by Rock Indiana and is being dubbed “Indiana’s Witch Hunt.”

The main focus of the protest is State Senator Patricia Miller (she is co-sponsoring the festival). Miller’s recent history of aggressively supporting and sponsoring legislation that is aimed directly at gays and lesbians in Indiana is obvious. A few weeks ago she authored the controversial “authorized reproduction” bill, but has a history of trying to oppress gays and lesbians. She also sponsored a bill would that would move university employees to a state health-care plan and limit benefits to state and university employees, their spouses and children, effectively removing domestic partner benefits. She also voted in favor of SJR7. But she isn’t just limiting herself to legislating gays and lesbians into oblivion. Her position as the executive director of the Confessing Movement (a radical conservative anti-gay movement within the United Methodist Church) allows her to oppress gays and lesbians every day. This “movement” seeks to root out ANY acceptance of GLBT from within the United Methodist Church. It’s obvious that this woman is obsessed with denying GLBT citizens in every facet of life. In the interview with Channel 6 she denied being a religious zealot, but I think Senator Miller’s actions speak louder than her words.

Chasing Amy's Heart

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:25:39 +0100

Today I watched “An Evening With Kevin Smith.” Kevin wrote and directed such movies as “Clerks,” “Dogma,” and “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.” One of movies he made was “Chasing Amy.” When watching “An Evening” the lesbian issue came up when a person named Lala self identified herself as a lesbian. She asked Kevin if he was perpetuating “the myth” that all a lesbian needs is a good man to turn them straight. Honestly, this kind of question pisses me the fuck off. I’m not pissed at Kevin Smith, but the tight asses that get their panties in a bunch because of this movie. A synopsis at Kevin’s site explains it best:

"I wanted to make the film," Smith further explains, "to further explore how two people's love for one another can alter their own perceptions about themselves. What and who we think we and others are changes all the time. Points of view, obsessions, insecurities, everything shapes our self-image. Although Alyssa says she is gay, she doesn't feel constrained by her sexual orientation. So, is she by definition gay? My gay friends say no. She couldn't fall in love with Holden if she were. OK, then what is she? Is she what she thinks she is or what Holden thinks she is, or none of the above?"
“You can’t judge her,” he continues. “She’s still experimenting with her life, making up her mind who she is. She’s made her choices and will make others. I can empathize with both of them but Alyssa is the stronger of the two. She walks into the situation with her eyes open while Holden’s vision is narrowed by his limited perspectives and experiences.” Says Smith: “Holden hasn’t figured it all out yet. Alyssa is in the process of learning it."

I get miffed when lesbian identified women make derogatory comments about the movie. Kevin’s perspective focuses on love, while their perspective is one that would make this simply a genetics debate. Out of this foolish debate is where the idea that bisexuality doesn’t exist comes from.

There are people in this world that look for love, not just a penis or a vagina. We aren’t confused. We aren’t lying.

If we are male and decide to be in a relationship, is it not a gay relationship? A couple in our local Bi group is a lesbian couple. Are they not in a lesbian relationship because one of them self identifies as bisexual but isn’t practicing?

I refuse to feel the need to justify my transsexuality or my sexual orientation to anyone. If I chose to do something that helps me to live a healthy, productive life, how is that anyone else’s business? If I love myself, and I’m loved… how is that a bad thing?

So ya… bisexuals do exist.

Gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals, please do me a favor…get the fuck over it.

Gay Swedish Fiction By John Q Republican

Wed, 13 Jul 2005 19:09:52 +0100

This entry is a favorite of mine from my LiveJournal

Below is an article was in our local newspaper, “The Indianapolis Star.”

Lori Borgman Marriage: It’s for kids' sake March 14, 2004

If you want to peer into the crystal ball to see what family life will be like in the event we redefine marriage, look to Scandinavia. The equivalent of same-sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade, and the verdict is in – same-sex marriage has eroded the already rusty link in the chain between marriage and family.

Marriage is passe in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Marriage is so out of fashion that among those who do marry, some choose to keep it private to avoid embarrassment. Even more surprising, few homosexuals are taking advantage of same-sex unions. The heterosexual and homosexual marriage pool has shriveled so much that marriage and divorce statistics are difficult to interpret.

Author Stanley Kurtz, who has been parsing the data coming from Scandinavia, says this much is crystal clear – any form of family is acceptable.

Marriage is no longer seen as a precursor to parenthood. When heterosexual marriage is no longer seen as the norm, and marriage and parenthood are no longer seen as going hand-in-hand, married parenthood becomes an oddity. Disassociating heterosexual marriage from parenting is like splitting up the salt and pepper, but that’s exactly what has happened.

In Scandinavia, marriage has ceased being a big event in most young men and women’s lives. Many Nordic beauties have bid farewell to chunky issues of Bride’s magazine, engagement rings and bridal showers. Marriage once signaled the hallmark of maturity in the journey of life. Today the mark of maturity in Scandinavia is having a baby.

Couples become an item, birth a child and often live together for a year or so. Ultimately, however, couples can manage financially as individuals, so they tend to split and move to the next partner. And the next. It appears similar to that awful going-steady-and-breaking-up cycle of junior high, only with sex, and without end.

Who bears the brunt of all these adults sailing in and out of relationships and unable to cast anchor? Hint: They tend to be short, have soft cheeks, big eyes and like to sleep with teddy bears.

The majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. An immense welfare state and state-run day care, funded by the enormous, albeit compulsory, generosity of taxpayers, attempt to fill the void of moms and dads, or moms and moms, and dads and dads, who opt not to tie the knot.

Our own nation’s link between marriage and family has been showing signs of rust for several decades. Less than half of our twenty-somethings believe it is immoral to have a baby out of wedlock. We already lead the world in single parenthood and divorce. So is now the time to dismantle marriage even further? All quite possibly at the expense of our kids? One small step for man, one giant tumble for the children of tomorrow.

Marriage under the best of circumstances is a mystery. Oh, let’s be honest. Some days it’s an outright miracle.

You do not tinker with a social, legal and religious institution that has stood as a foundation to nations and cultures for centuries without risking serious repercussions.

Whichever path we choose, we will all – married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual – live out the consequences, as will our children, our grandchildren and their children.

In the words of Margaret Mead, “As the family goes, so goes the nation.”

I responded to her with this….

Let’s Be Honest, For The Kids’ Sake By Marti Abernathey

For the kids’ sake, let’s look at this logically with all the facts on the table. Mrs. Borgman insinuates that “The equivalent of same-sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade” in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Not one same sex marriage has ever been performed in any of these countries. Denmark adopted a registered partnership law in 1989 that grants most of the benefits and obligations of marriage. Norway and Sweden have similar cohabitation laws as well. The only countries that same sex couples can legally marry are The Netherlands (April 1, 2001), Belgium (January 30, 2003), British Columbia (July 8, 2003), and Ontario (June 10, 2003).

She continues on to suggest that “the verdict is in – same-sex marriage has eroded the already rusty link in the chain between marriage and family” and that “the heterosexual and homosexual marriage pool has shriveled so much that marriage and divorce statistics are difficult to interpret.” The insinuation is that gay marriage has caused the decline in the family and the separation of marriage and family. The studies figures show that only 2,372 gay couples had registered in nine years of the Danish registered partnership law in a country of 5.1 million people. In Norway (674 same sex couples registered out of 4.2 million people after four years) and Sweden (749 same sex couples registered out of 8.5 million people after four years) the number of couples that have registered against the total population are miniscule. Mrs. Borgman also neglects to add that registered partnerships in Scandinavia restrict or forbid adoptions or artificial insemination by gay couples! It’s curious that such a small percentage of couples have affected marriage so strongly. She and Mr. Kurtz both glaze over the increase in no-fault divorces, yet most studies suggest (no-fault divorces) have increased divorce 20 to 25 percent in the United States.

So where does Mrs. Borgman get her data? This theory she espouses is from an article written by Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution is a conservative think tank that has strong ties to President Bush. Past or present fellows include; Richard Allen (United States National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan), George Shultz, Edwin Meese, Condolezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Thomas Sowell, Pete Wilson, Williamson M. Evers, John B. Taylor, and Newt Gingrich.

The burning question in my mind is who exactly is Stanley Kurtz. Turns out Mr. Kurtz graduated from Haverford College (Haverford is a liberal arts college founded in 1833 by members of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)) where he majored in comparative religion. Stanley Kurtz went on to study comparative religion at Harvard Divinity School as well. Does anyone else besides me see a problem here?

She continues her diatribe saying “You do not tinker with a social, legal and religious institution that has stood as a foundation to nations and cultures for centuries without risking serious repercussions.” This argument sounds eerily familiar to the reasoning for a proposed amendment by Representative Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia. Representative Roddenberry said that his amendment would uphold the sanctity of marriage. He said he took this action because some states have permitted marriages that are “abhorrent and repugnant.” He said he would like to “exterminate now this debasing, ultrademoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy.”

He warned, “Let this condition go on if you will. At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa.” That’s right, he wasn’t talking about gay marriage but interracial marriage and the year he introduced this legislation was 1921.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Why I Want To Be A Canadian

Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:20:42 +0100

Very few times in life have I heard something so moving, so honest, and so historically relevant that it moved me to tears….

To my Canadian friends, I envy you… if all goes well, when I die, it shall be on Canadian soil.

I can’t believe I missed this…

Prime Minister Paul Martin on February 16, 2005 See video of speech

"I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law.
This is an important day. The attention of our nation is focused on this chamber in which John Diefenbaker introduced the Bill of Rights, in which Pierre Trudeau fought to establish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text. More deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

And that is why I stand today before members here and before the people of this country to say I believe in, and I will fight for, the Charter of Rights. I believe in, and I will fight for, a Canada that respects the foresight and vision of those who created and entrenched the Charter. I believe in, and I will fight for, a future in which generations of Canadians to come, Canadians born here and abroad, will have the opportunity to value the Charter as we do today as an essential pillar of our democratic freedoms.

There have been a number of arguments put forward by those who do not support this bill. Its important and respectful to examine them and to assess them.

First, some have claimed that, once this bill becomes law, religious freedoms will be less than fully protected. This is demonstrably untrue. As it pertains to marriage, the government’s legislation affirms the Charter guarantee, that religious officials are free to perform such ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith.

In this, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada, which makes clear that in no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple in no religious house will those who disagree with same-sex unions be compelled to perform them. Period. That is why this legislation is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Moreover, and this is crucially important , the Supreme Court has declared unanimously, and I quote: ‘The guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.’

The facts are plain. Religious leaders who preside over marriage ceremonies must and will be guided by what they believe. If they do not wish to celebrate marriages for same-sex couples, that is their right. The Supreme Court says so. And the Charter says so.

One final observation on this aspect of the issue: Religious leaders have strong views both for and against this legislation. They should express them. Certainly, many of us in this House, myself included, have a strong faith, and we value that faith and its influence on the decisions we make. But all of us have been elected to serve here as Parliamentarians. And as public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians.

We will be influenced by our faith but we also have an obligation to take the widest perspective – to recognize that one of the great strengths of Canada is its respect for the rights of each and every individual, to understand that we must not shrink from the need to reaffirm the rights and responsibilities of Canadians in an evolving society.

The second argument ventured by opponents of the bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to ‘civil union.’ This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote: ‘Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships …falls short of true equality.’

Put simply, we must always remember that ‘separate but equal’ is not equal. Whats more, those who call for the establishment of civil unions fail to understand that the Government of Canada does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Only the provinces have that. Only the provinces could define such a regime, and they could define it in 10 different ways, and some jurisdictions might not bother to define it at all. There would be uncertainty. There would be confusion. There would certainly not be equality.

Fourth, some are urging the government to respond to the decisions of the courts by getting out of the marriage business altogether. That would mean no more civil weddings for any couples.

It is worth noting that this idea was rejected by the major religions themselves when their representatives appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in 2003. Moreover, it would be an extreme and counterproductive response for the government to deny civil marriage to opposite-sex couples simply so it can keep it from same-sex couples. To do so would simply be to replace one form of discrimination with another.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are some who oppose this legislation who would have the government use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights to override the courts and reinstate the traditional definition of marriage. And really, this is the fundamental issue here.

Understand that in seven provinces and one territory, the lawful union of two people of the same sex in civil marriage is already the law of the land. The debate here today is not about whether to change the definition of marriage, its been changed. The debate comes down to whether we should override a right that is now in place. The debate comes down to the Charter, the protection of minority rights, and whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause.

I know that some think we should use the clause. For example, some religious leaders feel this way. I respect their candor in publicly recognizing that because same-sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way. The only way to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Ultimately Mr. Speaker, there is only one issue before this House in this debate. For most Canadians, in most parts of our country, same-sex marriage is already the law of the land. Thus, the issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.

Some are frank and straightforward and say yes. Others have not been so candid. Despite being confronted with clear facts, despite being confronted with the unanimous opinion of 134 legal scholars, experts in their field, intimately familiar with the Constitution, some have chosen to not be forthright with Canadians. They have eschewed the honest approach in favour of the political approach. They have attempted to cajole the public into believing that we can return to the past with a simple snap of the fingers, that we can revert to traditional definition of marriage without consequence and without overriding the Charter. Theyre insincere. Theyre disingenuous. And theyre wrong.

There is one question that demands an answer a straight answer from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers, yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights. But theres a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the Charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nations leader and to the nations Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms. We would risk becoming a country in which the defence of rights is weighed, calculated and debated based on electoral or other considerations.

That would set us back decades as a nation. It would be wrong for the minorities of this country. It would be wrong for Canada.

The Charter is a living document, the heartbeat of our Constitution. It is also a proclamation. It declares that as Canadians, we live under a progressive and inclusive set of fundamental beliefs about the value of the individual. It declares that we all are lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right.

We cannot exalt the Charter as a fundamental aspect of our national character and then use the notwithstanding clause to reject the protections that it would extend. Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you, If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

My responsibility as Prime Minister, my duty to Canada and to Canadians, is to defend the Charter in its entirety. Not to pick and choose the rights that our laws shall protect and those that are to be ignored. Not to decree those who shall be equal and those who shall not. My duty is to protect the Charter, as some in this House will not.

Let us never forget that one of the reasons that Canada is such a vibrant nation, so diverse, so rich in the many cultures and races of the world, is that immigrants who come here as was the case with the ancestors of many of us in this chamber feel free and are free to practice their religion, follow their faith, live as they want to live. No homogenous system of beliefs is imposed on them.

When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature. We are reinforcing the Canada we value. We are saying, proudly and unflinchingly, that defending rights not just those that happen to apply to us, not just that everyone approves of, but all fundamental rights is at the very soul of what it means to be a Canadian.

This is a vital aspect of the values we hold dear and strive to pass on to others in the world who are embattled, who endure tyranny, whose freedoms are curtailed, whose rights are violated.

Why is the Charter so important, Mr. Speaker? We have only to look at our own history. Unfortunately, Canadas story is one in which not everyones rights were protected under the law. We have not been free from discrimination, bias, unfairness. There have been blatant inequalities.

Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women ‘personhood’ and the right to vote. There was a time, not that long ago, that if you wore a turban, you couldnt serve in the RCMP. The examples are many, but whats important now is that they are part of our past, not our present.

Over time, perspectives changed. We evolved, we grew, and our laws evolved and grew with us. That is as it should be. Our laws must reflect equality not as we understood it a century or even a decade ago, but as we understand it today.

For gays and lesbians, evolving social attitudes have, over the years, prompted a number of important changes in the law. Recall that, until the late 1960s, the state believed it had the right to peek into our bedrooms. Until 1977, homosexuality was still sufficient grounds for deportation. Until 1992, gay people were prohibited from serving in the military. In many parts of the country, gays and lesbians could not designate their partners as beneficiaries under employee medical and dental benefits, insurance policies or private pensions. Until very recently, people were being fired merely for being gay.

Today, we rightly see discrimination based on sexual orientation as arbitrary, inappropriate and unfair. Looking back, we can hardly believe that such rights were ever a matter for debate. It is my hope that we will ultimately see the current debate in a similar light; realizing that nothing has been lost or sacrificed by the majority in extending full rights to the minority.

Without our relentless, inviolable commitment to equality and minority rights, Canada would not be at the forefront in accepting newcomers from all over the world, in making a virtue of our multicultural nature the complexity of ethnicities and beliefs that make up Canada, that make us proud that we are where our world is going, not where its been.

Four years ago, I stood in this House and voted to support the traditional definition of marriage. Many of us did. My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

But much has changed since that day. Weve heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We’ve come to the realization that instituting civil unions, adopting a ‘separate but equal’ approach would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We’ve confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make. Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not?

To those who would oppose this bill, I urge you to consider that the core of the issue before us today is whether the rights of all Canadians are to be respected. I believe they must be. Justice demands it. Fairness demands it. The Canada we love demands it.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1960s the government of Lester Pearson faced opposition as it moved to entrench official bilingualism. But it persevered and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was. In the 1980s the government of Pierre Trudeau faced opposition as it attempted to repatriate the Constitution and enshrine a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it persevered, and it won the day. Its members believed it was the right thing to do, and it was.

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when we as Parliamentarians can feel the gaze of history upon us. They felt it in the days of Pearson. They felt it in the days of Trudeau. And we, the 308 men and women elected to represent one of the most inclusive, just and respectful countries on the face of this earth, feel it today.

There are few nations whose citizens cannot look to Canada and see their own reflection. For generations, men and women and families from the four corners of the globe have made the decision to chose Canada to be their home. Many have come here seeking freedom of thought, religion and belief. Seeking the freedom simply to be.

The people of Canada have worked hard to build a country that opens its doors to include all, regardless of their differences; a country that respects all, regardless of their differences; a country that demands equality for all, regardless of their differences.

If we do not step forward, then we step back. If we do not protect a right, then we deny it. Mr. Speaker, together as a nation, together as Canadians, let us step forward."

DON'T YOU DARE CALL ME A NAZI, YOU NAZI!

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:45:55 +0100

Because the whole system [is] like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber." - Bob Novak 5/14/05

“I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.'” - Senator Rick Santorum

“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. " Pat Robertson 1993

“The EPA, the Gestapo of government, pure and simply has been one of the major claw-hooks that the government maintains on the backs of our constituents.” Tom DeLay 1995

Hitler was “an individual of great courage” and a “genius.” Talk about Jews killed at Treblinka reflected “group fantasies of martyrdom.” Pat Buchanan 1990

“Those who support gay and lesbian families are no different from those who supported Adolph Hitler in the years preceding World War II” - Sheri Drew, who gave the invocation at the Republican National Convention on August 31, 2004

“The Nazis were for gun control, the Nazis were for high marginal tax rates. Do you want to talk about who’s closer politically to national socialism, the Right or the Left?” Anti-Tax Activist Grover Norquist, 2004

“What Hitler began to build against the Jews is now being built against people of faith who believe the Scriptures are valid for today and their injunctions against certain sexual behaviors is correct.” Lou Sheldon, Traditional Value Coalition 1998

*“The notion that is involved in homosexuality, the unbridled sort of satisfaction of human passions’ leads to ‘totalitarianism,’ ‘Nazism,’ and ‘communism.’ - Alan Keyes 1997

“We certainly have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany’s abuses of science,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) declared regarding his opposition to stem cell research last October. “As a society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow or should allow.”

“The whole system [for picking judges] is like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber.” Robert Novak May 15, 2005

TRUTH IS BAD!

Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:51:22 +0100

A youth opinion writer for the Indianapolis star wrote recently that

"Howard Deans recent comment generalizing the GOP as 'pretty much a white, Christian party' was both untimely and ill-advised." and that "The greatest prospect for the Democratic Party to win the 2008 presidential election is its potential to exploit the flaws of the Bush administration. Repetition of the issues, however, and not mindless name-calling, is the key to Democratic victory."

I responded with the following:

Mindless name-calling? Is it suddenly a mudslinging to speak the truth?

44 of 3,643 Republicans serving in state legislatures across the country are minorities. For those of you into percentages that’s about 1.2%. In Washington, 274 of the 535 elected Senators and Representatives are Republican… 5 are minorities (2%).

Howard Dean simply spoke the truth…. This type of comment is similar to the rhetoric of the Right that demonized John Kerry for pointing out that Dick Cheney’s daughter was a lesbian. Somehow its become controversial to speak truth.

Hate In Constitution One Step Closer

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:12:46 +0100

Tuesday evening the Indiana House of Representatives passed Senate Joint Resolution 7 by a vote of 76 to 23. The measure was passed by the Senate earlier in the month and now must be passed by a separately elected legislature before it can be put on the ballot. The earliest the measure could make it onto the ballot is 2008.

Shortly after the vote, a small group of protesters gathered outside the State House. Marti Abernathey said “I came out because our legislators need to know that regardless of weather or the time of day, we will make our voices heard.”

Later on the protest moved to Monument Circle. Patrons of the Columbia Club seemed shocked and dismayed that their establishment was in earshot of the protest. Pepper Partin said “Many folks who obviously held government positions entered and exited while we were there. Some gave thumbs up and others looked a little like deer in headlights. I think many exiting the Columbia Club were a little startled by our presence.”

Although disappointed with the vote, protester Kevin Gaither said “There is much time; there is much hope; there is so much to be done. I only hope the GBLT community of Indiana can come together in this dark time to produce a light of hope for all the GBLT youth of Indiana. They are the ones this type of legislation damages the most. Legislated hatred and bigotry is the lowest form of politics.”

Robin Hood

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:14:07 +0100

As I was getting ready for work, I sat at my PC and talked with one of my favorite LJ'ers, angiewarhol, about "The Justice League", and it somehow fired a synapse that triggered a memory about my childhood.

I get very few crystal clear glimpses of my past and my transsexuality. Usually, it is just a warm memory that is fuzzy at best. For some reason, tonight, I remembered a theatrical presentation of Robin Hood that my 3rd-grade class (not sure exactly sure of the grade) was presenting. As one of the merry men of Robin's troup, I had to wear tights. This made me extremely uncomfortable! How weird to feel that same uncomfortableness all these years later! I can still taste the anxiety and dread..... I was worried that someone might figure out my hidden desire. Wearing those tights made me feel things I would rather not feel. Looking back, I felt pretty, feminine, and soft when I wore the tights. Those were feelings a young boy in a family of homophobes and bigots shouldn't feel. Too bad that little boy/girl wasn't allowed to express who she was...

Its taken her 35 years, and she is still trying to crawl out from under than shame. The difference is, that she has loving, supportive people around her now. :)

The Loss of Innocence

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:35:40 +0100

Coming back from Kentucky, Lisa gave me a GLSO Newspaper to read on the way back. Its a queer organization in Kentucky. Anywho, an article in it hit me like a ton of bricks, and I wanted to share it….

The Loss of Innocence aftermath of the affair by Kelly O’ferrell

“This is not the face of an ingenue; this is an old soul in a new body- wary, wise to her own long past, on to the wiles of the world, and having miles to go before she sleeps."-Sarah Ban Breathnach

I stood one day and listened as a co-worker told me about her new girlfriend. They’ve been friends for three years, were mutually attracted to one another, but never single at the same time. Now, finally, they are both single and have started dating-and everything that comes along with dating!!

“I think I’ve finally found the one I’m going to spend the rest of my life with.” she said. Suddenly, I felt my body rip down the middle. “The one forever,” is what I heard her say. Those words were vibrating in the room.

I wanted to run from the room. But first, I wanted to grab her and scream “THERE IS NO FOREVER!!” Stop looking forward to forever with this woman. Wake up now before you get hurt.!” She was pouring salt in a wound that had almost healed up. I had almost forgotten that forever isn’t real. About two years ago I heard the words, “I’ve had an affair.” I wasn’t expecting to hear those words - not from her. I had always heard, “You couldn’t sandblast me out of this relationship and I want to spend the rest of my life with you.” I didn’t live my life wondering if, when, who, where.

All my co-worker heard from me was, “That’s really nice.” All she saw was me smiling as she continued telling me about her new love. I had to ask her: “Have you ever been in a relationship where someone had an affair?” I wanted to know to what extent her history has shaped her belief in forever. I just wanted to know that if the answer was yes AND she still believed in forever, then maybe she could tell me how I could believe in forever again too. “No,” she said, “but there was one girlfriend who I still believe had an affair but she denies it to this day.”

“Just for today, Kelly” someone `reminded me. “Just for today you can believe her.” She was telling me that I could believe in my new girlfriend. “There was no guarantee of forever in your last relationship even when you believed there was.” Even in my innocence, the truth was there. I asked my friend Betsy, if she believes she’s with Anna “forever”. I know she loves Anna very much. And she knows the truth too. “The possibilities are endless,” she said. “And I know that I want to do whatever I have to do to stay with Anna.” Anna just looked at me, laughed and said, “You’re making my stomach hurt!” I wonder if I will ever feel - what? Like I did before? No, I will not feel like that again. There’s something about ‘going back’ thats unsettling. So I guess I will feel something new. But why does that thought leave me feeling a little sad?

I talked to my friend, Jaime, about this concept of going back. “Back to what,” I asked him. “Back to innocence?” No. We couldn’t find the word. “Here’s another word for innocence,” he said, “unconscious. And here’s another one - ingenue. It means a naive girl or young woman.”

Interesting. As a child, an ingenue, I was unconscious because of my limited experiences. I thought that my pets would live forever, that my family and friends would always be there. I had no experience of death and in my case, no family members divorcing.

And then, as I grew older, I began to have experiences - my pets died, my grandparents died. When I was in college, a friend who was 18 years old was killed going home from work when he fell asleep at the wheel. When I was 24, I went through a divorce with a man I didnt really plan on spending my life with. Someone I did plan on spending the rest of my life with left and I didnt see it coming. And then there was the sickening feeling of hearing, “and I’ve had an affair.” I’ve since watched friends and family battle cancer and heart attacks and survive. And, as I continued to grow older, I watched my friends parents die. And as sad and scary as all of that is, it increases my consciousness to be mindful that the people, pets, and things in my life are as temporary as my last breath.

No. Im not interested in going back - back to being unconscious. I know that pain and joy are equal ingredients that have made my life , the paths I have taken, a more conscious, wonderful journey. If the chances of a relationship staying are there too. the possibilities really are endless.

Just for today I am dating a woman that I like very much. Just for today, I love my life with my friends and my dog Lucy. I do not know what my life will be like tomorrow. The loss of innocence is a process of growing older, an increase in awareness comes whether I’m ready or not.

Two years ago, I did not know when I woke up that morning, that my life would be so painfully, radically different before I went to sleep that night. I did not know that what happened in that one day - when I was told about what had happened- would change how I felt forever.

Ah, there it is again - forever. Apparently, sometimes, in my innocence I still believe in forever. But, not this time. No. I will not give her affair that much power. That’s my part - how how I choose to let it shape my future relationships. So, just for today, especially with my girlfriend Holly, I will believe….

I May Be A Queer, But I Love Thomas Jefferson

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:24:13 +0100

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

"I am... averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public: because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1803. ME 10:380

"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME 15:60

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817 ME 17:425

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:127

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545

Nervous....

Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:47:54 +0100

Well, I went in the Indiana Statehouse for the first time in my life. And who stepped through those doors? Marti. It’s wierd to be in a space as a female that I have never been in as a male.

I was nervous as hell at first because it was a press conference and I have mild social anxiety anyhow. As soon as we got into the room where the press conference was to be held and that all washed away. Chris Douglas, a local gay Republican, got up and really pegged a knot in the Indiana Senate’s ass. I’ve never seen him so hot under the collar. It was a great performance to the media.

I came home and slept… then coded the website some….then slept…zzzzzzzzzz and my alarm doesn’t go off….zzzzzzz wake up and what time is it? 9:05pm. FUCK my bus comes in …15 minutes!!! So I hall balls ..change clothes and run out the door. I had to run to make the bus, if that tells you how close I was to missing the bus. Sooooooooooooo, I made it to the bus…and got to work OK.

SMELL ALERT while I took a shower this AM, I feel icky. Damn running for the bus! Damn warm coat!

Pride Extravaganza!

Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:38:33 +0100

My Friend

Lexy from Boston came into Indy on Friday night. I met her out at the airport, then took her back to the apartment. I had to work, so I showed her the apartment, then went to work.

Cafe In the morning we went to a nearby cafe called “The Yellow Canary.”

Then we proceeded to prance over to pride. We caught a bit of the parade….

and then jetted over to the actual festival.

Of course no pride would be complete without drag queens…..

I started to pass out flyers with information about the HRC and their sponsorship of non-inclusive hate crimes legislation, all the while they pretend to advocate for us. The response from most people was great!

How straight do I look here? OMFG :)

The HRC people gave me that “Oh god!! The Jehovah’s Witnesses are at my door!!” look. Oh fucking well.

I went over to the INTRAA booth for a bit of a visit.

I met Bree there.... omg.. um... she's cute, and very articulate too. I also saw the founders of INTRAA, Bryan and Lori Sirtosky. TG folk around the state owe these two a lot. They have put a lot of time and effort into building INTRAA into what it is today.

Indy Boyz were also at pride. These two pics I got are both from F2M’S AND ARE PRICELESS!

Then Lexy and I went to the mall, then back home. She got ready to go to her High School reunion, then she left :( . She was a lot of fun!

Went to work and worked 12hrs……. then came home.

:) Long weekend!

Famous Dead People

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:18:53 +0100

Honestly, all this Reagan worship freaks me the hell out. Thousands of folks line the street for a man they didn’t know? Weird. The only way thing I can even remotely relate to is a twinge of sorrow I felt during Lady Di’s funeral, but that was because she was such a humanitarian. I didn’t know her, and honestly, her death hasn’t had a lasting effect on me at all.

Really, the only famous person I ever really grieved for in death was Kevyn Aucoin. In life, he inspired me with his wit and wisdom, not only about makeup, but also about life. He was truly a ~~gay~~ hero that had the most gentle spirit and huge heart that was evident in his books, advocacy, and writings. Kevyn spoke to me to the core of my essence when he wrote “Today, I see beauty everywhere I go, in every face I see, in every single soul. And sometimes, even in myself.” Since his death, he has inspired me to try and follow his “path of enlightenment” concerning myself and how I treat others. If I had to choose to be remembered in the spirit of Reagan or Aucoin, it’s a no brainer. I want to be remembered as someone who loved life and the people close to me wholeheartedly.

Running Away... A Lesson Learned

Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:17:33 +0100

As a young boy not quite eight years old, I set off to run away from home. My mother had made me eat cole slaw and forbid me to watch my favorite superhero, Wonder Woman. I had had enough, so I started packing. I found my mom’s curler carrier. It was one of those hard brown leather cases with the mirror attached to the top. With my mom’s curler box emptied of all her plastic curlers, I replaced them with all my Star Wars action figures, my Evil Kenevil and Fonzie dolls, and a few other prized possessions. I fixed a PB&J sandwich, and then hit the door running.

I was so upset with my mother for forcing me to eat that nasty slaw. As I walked towards the drainage ditch, it hit me. Who would feed me? Where would I sleep? How would I get to school? I sat at the ditch and ate my PB&J and contemplated my future. I realized, even as a small child, that I was running from problems that weren’t as large as the ones I was running to.

That episode happened 27 years ago. That boy at the drainage ditch isn’t quiet a boy anymore. He isn’t even a man. That boy is a woman, or at least she is on her way.

I had to go through an alcoholic father and his death at age 11, two divorces and custody battles and a long internal battle accepting my transsexuality. My second ex-wife, Lynn, denied my visitation when it was clear that I was transitioning and wasn’t going to hide it.

Last year it became apparent that I wasn’t going to be allowed to see my kids. I sank further and further into a horrid depression. I didn’t leave the house for weeks. One Sunday, I put my resume on Monster.com and came home to 15 calls from recruiters. One call was from the DC area. The recruiter connected me to a job not far from DC in Fredericksburg, VA. In an all too familiar scenario, I packed a suitcase and flew to DC to interview.

The interview went great, and I rushed a move. I threw my sound equipment, computers and my clothes in my rented 2002 Mustang and drove away from Indiana feeling free. The company paid for everything, and finally my life seemed to be leveling out again…or so I thought. The $4,000 sign on bonus turned out to be $2,600 after taxes. My recruiter forced me into buying a car from them. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t pass Maryland inspection, and I was somehow coned into a lemon. So goes my second attempt to runaway.

Again, my world was beginning to unravel. The only difference was I was 600 miles from my kids and I left any support network that I had, back in Indiana. Waves and waves of questions hit me. How would I work things out from 600 miles away? Why did I move so quickly? Did I leave people that love me to run away from the greatest pain in my life? There’s no drainage ditch close to my apartment, and I no longer eat PB&J’s, but the questions hit me just as hard.

My life is different, but not any better. Running away to Washington DC hasn’t solved any of my problems. Like that little boy standing at the drainage ditch, I have realized I need to go back and face my problems…not run from them. No one else is going to solve my problems for me. If I don’t, no one will. My heart hurt so badly at the trauma of my divorce and the ensuing drama that began once my transition was announced. Sticking my head in the sand isn’t going to get me any closer to transitioning fully, having FFS or SRS, or gaining closure to this part of my life.

As a child, I swallowed my pride, and walked back into the house and learned to live under my moms rule. As an adult, im moving back to Indiana to deal with the issues I buried when I left. Lynn has agreed to working on a resolution to seeing the kids, but that can only go forward if I move back. I have made contacts within the t-community in Indiana and hope to help them lobby local politicians for trans-inclusive legislation. I will continue to do my radio show “The T-Party” and write. The difference from before the move will be in my outlook and attitude. Some lessons really are worth learning twice.