The Barney Frank Question
Theresa Rickman, spokesperson for the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever, left a comment on our blog yesterday that asked:
This didn't make any sense to me, and so I googled for Theresa and "Barney Frank" but didn't find where she had asked this question. I did find something in an earlier thread that said this:
It wasn't signed, but I remember thinking at the time that it sounded like Theresa. I'm glad she comments on our blog, though she infuriates by throwing stuff like this out there and never answering anything that is asked of her.
I can't tell you what "TTF" thinks about Barney Frank, because we don't have an official position on something like that, and I think everybody in our group probably sees it a little differently. But I can talk about what I think.
Theresa is asking about Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank in light of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, called ENDA, which will make it illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue is this: Barney Frank thinks that it is sufficient for ENDA to cover gay and lesbian people, while others think the bill should include discrimination on the basis of gender identity as well. The practical matter is that there are enough votes in Congress to pass it if it refers to sexual orientation, and probably not if gender identity is added.
There is a debate between the two sides, and there are fair arguments to be made both ways. Though Frank would like to include gender identity on the bill, he says that a bill covering sexual orientation is a lot better than what exists now, which is nothing, and that adding gender identity to the bill would only mean that it wouldn't pass. The other point of view is that it is equally wrong to discriminate against transgender people, and in fact the case can be made -- I've made it here before -- that transgender people need the protection even more than gay people, because their status is easier to observe and they are really badly treated. In fact, some have argued that discrimination against gays is usually based on observable gender nonconformity, and not so much on who they are romantically attracted to.
Now let me tell you why Theresa is asking this question. She belongs to a radical rightwing group that fought hard to prevent Montgomery County schools from implementing a sex-ed curriculum that gave sexual orientation a fair and objective treatment, and now she is the loudest voice as the same core group (they changed one word in their name for their newest crusade, we just call them the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever) tries to get petition signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in November to make it legal again to discriminate against transgender people in our county.
Theresa's point is that Barney Frank, who is liberal and gay, opposes adding gender identity to ENDA; the CRW, who are rightwing and anti-gay, oppose adding gender identity to our county's nondiscrimination law; and so by some magical binary logic Barney Frank and the CRW are on the same side. She thinks she has caught us in a contradiction there, where now we must believe that Barney Frank is a member of the religious right.
If you haven't been following the local controversy, let me tell you the CRW's argument regarding the new county nondiscrimination law. They totally avoid the topic of discrimination, which is what the law is about, and instead argue that the new law will lead to perverted men lurking in ladies shower-rooms and bathrooms, exposing themselves and leering at the women. They will get away with this by saying they are transgender, so that throwing them out of the ladies room amounts to discrimination.
I know you think I'm making that up. Go ahead and look at their web page, www.notmyshower.net. This is their whole argument.
I want to say what I think about ENDA, while I'm here. My opinion is that the bill should include gender identity, and that the politicians who support the bill and those who represent the transgender community should be working their butts off right now to convince the hold-outs to vote for the whole package.
Having said that, let me point out that the difference in quality between the Barney Frank argument and the CRW's argument. Barney Frank makes a practical argument: by removing gender identity from the bill, they can get it passed and move civil rights for sexual minorities a quantum leap forward. Gender identity can be added later, that dimension does not currently have the political support that sexual orientation does. It is an extremely reasonable argument, and so is the argument in favor of adding gender identity. Discrimination against transgender people is at least as pernicious as that against gays and lesbians, they are a vulnerable population that deserves the same protection as gays and lesbians, and it is as wrong to discriminate against transgender people as against gays and lesbians.
This is a kind of debate that can be argued in public by reasonable people. Both sides can put up their statistics, their facts, their most persuasive arguments, their best-looking speech-givers, and in the end one side or the other will win. I respect this kind of debate. I have friends who are gay and friends who are transgender, and I love them and hope they get everything they deserve. This is a perfectly right and democratic process where a community discusses a hard topic and comes to a decision, though in the end it is unlikely that everyone gets everything they want, at least the way the numbers stack up so far. It's hard and frustrating but this is our American Way at its finest, it seems to me, whichever way it turns out.
On the other hand, the CRW's case is a red herring. Nobody wants perverted men waving their festering penises around and leering at innocent women in the ladies room, everybody's against that -- and it has nothing to do with the bill they are trying to repeal. The nondiscrimination bill won't affect, in any way, the legality or the frequency of men going into ladies rooms. As it is, they can't go in to expose themselves, and they can't go in to peep at the ladies, whether they're transgender or not. The new law doesn't change anything about that.
The CRW's argument is incoherent and -- I know I've been using this word too much lately -- stupid. It's stupid and does not deserve the dignity of consideration by intelligent people. It is simply intended to distract from the real point, which is that they think it is important to be able to discriminate against transgender people -- they say they have "deep religious beliefs" that demand this. And look, I can think of two kinds of reasonable arguments against this bill. It may be that government doesn't need to regulate discrimination at all, whether it's about race, religion, national origin, whatever -- you could make that case. And it may be that nondiscrimination laws are okay, but they should not extend to transgender people for some reason, maybe you have a favorite reason, maybe they're bad people or you think they're up to something or they're immoral or undisciplined, anything you like, stand up and say it. Whatever, take the honest path and argue it straightforwardly and clearly. Bring out your statistics, your facts, your graphs, your starving-children photos, whatever. Hold your facts up against the other side's, let's discuss them and see who wins. But at least stay on topic. By changing the subject from discrimination to something to do with shower rooms, the CRW has shown that they are not serious about what they say, they have shown themselves to be dishonest and bad-hearted, and it makes you think they believe they couldn't win the debate in the sunshine, by stating their arguments honestly and forthrightly and appealing to people's good sense.
Reasonable people understand that Barney Frank would be sickened to learn that somebody like Theresa Rickman tried to imply that he was on the same side with her on anything.
Let me express the view that I bring to TTF on this kind of thing, which is to say it is not an official view of our group. It goes back to the sex-ed curriculum, and continues. I never really cared what kind of sex-ed curriculum Montgomery County had, I had never given it a thought before and never would have. I figured the community would find its way. I figured conservative people and liberal people would put their views on the table and discuss among themselves until compromises were negotiated, and our kids would have something good they could learn from, something that would reflect our community's values. I had faith in the American way of democratic freedom and open debate.
I didn't oppose the CRW -- originally RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com -- because they had conservative views, but because their goal was to disrupt the process of negotiating and debating that is so vital to the health of a democratic society. They wanted to replace facts and logic with misconstruals and innuendo, because they felt that they needed to get their way, and nothing short of their extreme view was acceptable to them. Honest people could not discuss reasonably because of the background noise this group was throwing up. Somebody had to stop them. My colleagues and I at TTF stepped up to stop them, each for his or her own reasons, and we joined together and shined a light on them day after day, as we continue to do now.
In the current gender identity nondiscrimination situation, we see the same thing. There are arguments to make on both sides, as there are in everything, but the CRW isn't making those arguments, instead they are creating a diversion, undermining the democratic process, sabotaging common sense, raving about perverted men in the ladies room, staging hoaxes, getting people to sign petitions about men in the ladies room when what they want is the return of discrimination.
And that's why I'm in this. Not to see laws and curricula that are more liberal or more conservative, but to see the community work it out honestly and reasonably. That's just my own view, not TTF's.
So, Theresa, to answer your question, speaking for myself: No.
I would still like an answer to my question.
Does TTF feel that Barney Frank is the new religous right ?
Yes or no ?
Theresa
This didn't make any sense to me, and so I googled for Theresa and "Barney Frank" but didn't find where she had asked this question. I did find something in an earlier thread that said this:
Hey, Jim -
question for you...
When did Barney Frank become a member of the religous right and a bigot ?
It wasn't signed, but I remember thinking at the time that it sounded like Theresa. I'm glad she comments on our blog, though she infuriates by throwing stuff like this out there and never answering anything that is asked of her.
I can't tell you what "TTF" thinks about Barney Frank, because we don't have an official position on something like that, and I think everybody in our group probably sees it a little differently. But I can talk about what I think.
Theresa is asking about Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank in light of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, called ENDA, which will make it illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue is this: Barney Frank thinks that it is sufficient for ENDA to cover gay and lesbian people, while others think the bill should include discrimination on the basis of gender identity as well. The practical matter is that there are enough votes in Congress to pass it if it refers to sexual orientation, and probably not if gender identity is added.
There is a debate between the two sides, and there are fair arguments to be made both ways. Though Frank would like to include gender identity on the bill, he says that a bill covering sexual orientation is a lot better than what exists now, which is nothing, and that adding gender identity to the bill would only mean that it wouldn't pass. The other point of view is that it is equally wrong to discriminate against transgender people, and in fact the case can be made -- I've made it here before -- that transgender people need the protection even more than gay people, because their status is easier to observe and they are really badly treated. In fact, some have argued that discrimination against gays is usually based on observable gender nonconformity, and not so much on who they are romantically attracted to.
Now let me tell you why Theresa is asking this question. She belongs to a radical rightwing group that fought hard to prevent Montgomery County schools from implementing a sex-ed curriculum that gave sexual orientation a fair and objective treatment, and now she is the loudest voice as the same core group (they changed one word in their name for their newest crusade, we just call them the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever) tries to get petition signatures to put a referendum on the ballot in November to make it legal again to discriminate against transgender people in our county.
Theresa's point is that Barney Frank, who is liberal and gay, opposes adding gender identity to ENDA; the CRW, who are rightwing and anti-gay, oppose adding gender identity to our county's nondiscrimination law; and so by some magical binary logic Barney Frank and the CRW are on the same side. She thinks she has caught us in a contradiction there, where now we must believe that Barney Frank is a member of the religious right.
If you haven't been following the local controversy, let me tell you the CRW's argument regarding the new county nondiscrimination law. They totally avoid the topic of discrimination, which is what the law is about, and instead argue that the new law will lead to perverted men lurking in ladies shower-rooms and bathrooms, exposing themselves and leering at the women. They will get away with this by saying they are transgender, so that throwing them out of the ladies room amounts to discrimination.
I know you think I'm making that up. Go ahead and look at their web page, www.notmyshower.net. This is their whole argument.
I want to say what I think about ENDA, while I'm here. My opinion is that the bill should include gender identity, and that the politicians who support the bill and those who represent the transgender community should be working their butts off right now to convince the hold-outs to vote for the whole package.
Having said that, let me point out that the difference in quality between the Barney Frank argument and the CRW's argument. Barney Frank makes a practical argument: by removing gender identity from the bill, they can get it passed and move civil rights for sexual minorities a quantum leap forward. Gender identity can be added later, that dimension does not currently have the political support that sexual orientation does. It is an extremely reasonable argument, and so is the argument in favor of adding gender identity. Discrimination against transgender people is at least as pernicious as that against gays and lesbians, they are a vulnerable population that deserves the same protection as gays and lesbians, and it is as wrong to discriminate against transgender people as against gays and lesbians.
This is a kind of debate that can be argued in public by reasonable people. Both sides can put up their statistics, their facts, their most persuasive arguments, their best-looking speech-givers, and in the end one side or the other will win. I respect this kind of debate. I have friends who are gay and friends who are transgender, and I love them and hope they get everything they deserve. This is a perfectly right and democratic process where a community discusses a hard topic and comes to a decision, though in the end it is unlikely that everyone gets everything they want, at least the way the numbers stack up so far. It's hard and frustrating but this is our American Way at its finest, it seems to me, whichever way it turns out.
On the other hand, the CRW's case is a red herring. Nobody wants perverted men waving their festering penises around and leering at innocent women in the ladies room, everybody's against that -- and it has nothing to do with the bill they are trying to repeal. The nondiscrimination bill won't affect, in any way, the legality or the frequency of men going into ladies rooms. As it is, they can't go in to expose themselves, and they can't go in to peep at the ladies, whether they're transgender or not. The new law doesn't change anything about that.
The CRW's argument is incoherent and -- I know I've been using this word too much lately -- stupid. It's stupid and does not deserve the dignity of consideration by intelligent people. It is simply intended to distract from the real point, which is that they think it is important to be able to discriminate against transgender people -- they say they have "deep religious beliefs" that demand this. And look, I can think of two kinds of reasonable arguments against this bill. It may be that government doesn't need to regulate discrimination at all, whether it's about race, religion, national origin, whatever -- you could make that case. And it may be that nondiscrimination laws are okay, but they should not extend to transgender people for some reason, maybe you have a favorite reason, maybe they're bad people or you think they're up to something or they're immoral or undisciplined, anything you like, stand up and say it. Whatever, take the honest path and argue it straightforwardly and clearly. Bring out your statistics, your facts, your graphs, your starving-children photos, whatever. Hold your facts up against the other side's, let's discuss them and see who wins. But at least stay on topic. By changing the subject from discrimination to something to do with shower rooms, the CRW has shown that they are not serious about what they say, they have shown themselves to be dishonest and bad-hearted, and it makes you think they believe they couldn't win the debate in the sunshine, by stating their arguments honestly and forthrightly and appealing to people's good sense.
Reasonable people understand that Barney Frank would be sickened to learn that somebody like Theresa Rickman tried to imply that he was on the same side with her on anything.
Let me express the view that I bring to TTF on this kind of thing, which is to say it is not an official view of our group. It goes back to the sex-ed curriculum, and continues. I never really cared what kind of sex-ed curriculum Montgomery County had, I had never given it a thought before and never would have. I figured the community would find its way. I figured conservative people and liberal people would put their views on the table and discuss among themselves until compromises were negotiated, and our kids would have something good they could learn from, something that would reflect our community's values. I had faith in the American way of democratic freedom and open debate.
I didn't oppose the CRW -- originally RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com -- because they had conservative views, but because their goal was to disrupt the process of negotiating and debating that is so vital to the health of a democratic society. They wanted to replace facts and logic with misconstruals and innuendo, because they felt that they needed to get their way, and nothing short of their extreme view was acceptable to them. Honest people could not discuss reasonably because of the background noise this group was throwing up. Somebody had to stop them. My colleagues and I at TTF stepped up to stop them, each for his or her own reasons, and we joined together and shined a light on them day after day, as we continue to do now.
In the current gender identity nondiscrimination situation, we see the same thing. There are arguments to make on both sides, as there are in everything, but the CRW isn't making those arguments, instead they are creating a diversion, undermining the democratic process, sabotaging common sense, raving about perverted men in the ladies room, staging hoaxes, getting people to sign petitions about men in the ladies room when what they want is the return of discrimination.
And that's why I'm in this. Not to see laws and curricula that are more liberal or more conservative, but to see the community work it out honestly and reasonably. That's just my own view, not TTF's.
So, Theresa, to answer your question, speaking for myself: No.
posted by JimK at 7:35 AM
46 Comments:
Jim,
I hate to say this, but I think you're being unfair to Theresa here. I didn't read her posts as suggesting that Congressman Frank was anti-trans for dropping gender identity from ENDA, or anything of the sort. I consider Barney a friend and understand the political calculus on the Hill, and as you pointed out, dropping gender was a pragmatic decision to help get a bill passed in a Congress of fresh new Democratic faces who did not want to be harrassed by the likes of Theresa in their first re-election campaigns.
Fine. The process was handled very badly, but it was highly educational and we will get it done with a more Democratic Congress and a Democratic president next year.
Back to Theresa. I believe she was referring to the explicit exemption in HR 2015, before gender was stripped, for showers and locker rooms. She apparently wants similar language in our law.
Now I think she's smart enough to understand that our attorneys have said that such language is not needed here because of the laws that already exist, but she prefers to not trust them. Our county is different from the U.S., etc., and while there are similarities in legislation across jurisdictions there are also major differences. So we didn't need to put such language in, but in her paranoia and/or desire simply to make mischief she harps on how the County can't be trusted and this bill is just a subterfuge to get all the women and children of the County raped and murdered in the locker room.
I can't see into her heart, so I don't really know why she behaves as she does. She's clearly deluded if she believes what she says. We've told her again and again that of all people trans people are the most sensitive to being physically exposed during transition, and that we always seek out more secure arrangements. She knows women's bathrooms have individual stalls and she has never known anything about the genitals of anyone using the bathroom. She knows trans women are not men, that not all men are predators, that men need no excuse to sneak into a bathroom and that this law will make no difference in that regard, that there has never been an instance of a disrobed transitioning trans woman in a locker room scaring one of her religious friends, that women commandeer men's rooms all the time, that her folks are far more discomfited by (the much larger number of) masculine-looking straight and gay women in the facilities, and that there are as many trans men as trans women who use the men's room and would horrify her if they had to use the women's room. She also knows that there will never be a locker room pat down process to prevent the horrors she fears, and that reasonable people behave reasonably to obviate the need for such intrusions.
I think she's interested in running for office and loves the publicity.
Maybe you're right, Dana, she didn't give us much to go on.
JimK
andrea- not anon
Oh, Dana, if Mad T wants to run for office, she won't be doing it here in MC. Even middle of the road republicans aren't winning here anymore- we have no place for rightwing bigots. I think Idaho or Montana is the place for her- one of those little towns where no one goes who isn't white and Westboro Christian.
Mike Huckabee invoked the slippery slope theory when he warned last week that gay marriage would eventually lead to bestiality. "Eventually"? Obviously Mike hasn't spent much time in New York.
"that there has never been an instance of a disrobed transitioning trans woman in a locker room"
Hey Dana
Have you ever heard of any instance of a trans person being denied the use of any bathroom?
Funny, Anonymous, that you should mention bestiality as a consequence of gay marriage. Apparently you are totally (willingly?) unaware of the fact that bestiality knows no gender or sexuality boundaries...it's probably more practiced in the heterosexual community...do a web search and you will be able to verify this.
RT
RT
That was a cut and paste from some other blog.
Just trying to insert a little humor.
I thought that the butt of the joke was Huckabee but it just goes to show the importance of perspective.
Theresa,
Yes, I know of instances of trans women being harrassed in bathrooms. Most don't make the papers, but they occur, the most recent one in the news having occurred in Grand Central Station. As I pointed out, it is often the more masculine gay woman who gets harrassed, and I've heard more of those stories from friends than from trans women.
Keep in mind that the number of people who are in a stage of legal limbo at any one time is small. We're talking about a transition period of usually one year at most before legal status is changed. After that there is no issue for anyone.
But this is my point. We've been negotiating these situations for decades, reasonable people behave reasonably, and for you to get bent out of shape is not just insulting but a waste of time -- much ado about nothing.
This is not a bill about accommodations, just as it's not a bill about taxicabs. The primary focus is on employment, where discrimination is prevalent and pervasive.
If all you really cared about was providing transitioning women special accommodations, you would be working within the system to amend the law for that particular purpose alone. You would work it like anyone without an axe to grind, and you would be trying to make a case that the law as it stands puts you in harm's way. You haven't done that, because the county attorneys have told you there is no reason for concern, but because you feel obligated to play the victim you call all of them liars. That is not an effective way to produce political change.
Have you ever heard of any instance of a trans person being denied the use of any bathroom?
Yes, trans people have been denied the use of bathrooms and worse:
"Two transgender individuals attending a weekend conference in Seattle were kicked out of a men's bathroom at Pacific Place and then ejected from the downtown mall..."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003872953_transbath07m.html
"Ethan Santiago, 20, of Methuen was born a girl but identifies himself as a man. Santiago applied for a men’s locker at Northern Essex Community College. School officials refused his request..."
http://stateandlake.net/ado/2007/12/17/denied-at-necc/
"...But in 2000, as the agency was renewing its lease, another tenant in the building allegedly complained about having to share bathrooms with “those men who look like women.” HAF had recently started a small bimonthly support group for transgender clients.
HAF’s executive director, Heriberto Sanchez Soto, said he tried to discuss the matter with the building’s manager, but to no avail. “He wanted us to assure him that they would use gender-appropriate bathrooms,” Sanchez Soto said. “I said that I couldn’t refuse bathrooms to clients based on their genitalia. He said we better do something or he wouldn’t renew the lease.”..."
http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=1345
"On July 10th, 2006 at 10pm, Christina Sforza, a transgender woman, ate with her friends at the McDonald's at 341 5th Ave. After eating, she tried to use the bathroom. The men's bathroom was out of order and all evening men and women were using the women's bathroom. She asked the person behind the counter which bathroom she should use and was told to use the women's bathroom. The victim is diabetic and entered the bathroom to give herself an insulin injection. While she was in the bathroom, she heard someone banging on the door yelling that they were going to "kill her." She waited a moment and then opened the door. An employee in a blue McDonald's shirt began beating her with a lead pipe and telling her he was going to "kill her." He used anti-gay and homophobic language. He hit her on her arms and in the groin area with the pipe while the rest of the McDonald's staff cheered and chanted, "kill the faggot.""
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502269
Have you ever heard of any instance of a trans person exposing him or herself to women and children in a public restroom?
LOS ANGELES (Jan. 30) - The city that popularized the fast food drive-thru has a new innovation: 24-hour medical marijuana vending machines.
Patients suffering from chronic pain, loss of appetite and other ailments that marijuana is said to alleviate can get their pot with a dose of convenience at the Herbal Nutrition Center, where a large machine will dole out the drug around the clock.
"Convenient access, lower prices, safety, anonymity," inventor and owner Vincent Mehdizadeh said, extolling the benefits of the machine.
AnonFreak Said:
"Have you ever heard of any instance of a trans person being denied the use of any bathroom?"
I have, Anon. My roommate is transgender and has a whole lot of trouble when he just needs to take a pee!
MTM
"Have you ever heard of any instance of a trans person being denied the use of any bathroom?"
I'm not talking about guys who go in the girls' room being beat up by other patrons.
I'm asking, and let's bring this into MC, is there ever been a case in MC where a business owner didn't allow a transgender to use any restroom?
I don't think there has.
The purpose of this legislation is not to solve a problem but to get official endorsement of dubious notions of gender identity.
The examples have already been pointed out to you anonymous, as has the fact that the bill is primarily about employment discrimination, a much more pressing need.
No of this stuff is a problem here in MC, Randi. You don't live here so you don't know this but people here are competing to get more trans in their establishments.
People who bring up cases in the UK are really a hoot. Did you know there's a new movement among gays in Europe that considers SRS to be a sexist attack on gays?
Meanwhile, how about this?:
"(Jan. 30) -- Jake Gyllenhaal is taking the death of Heath Ledger "harder than most people," as Ledger's "Brokeback Mountain" co-star tries to make sense of the sudden death.
PEOPLE , citing a source on the set of Gyllenhaal's latest movie, "Brothers," says that the actor is very distraught over the news, and that he left the set immediately when he learned of Ledger's passing.
"This has had a strong personal affect" on Gyllenhaal, the source says.
After leaving the set, Gyllenhaal then returned, but the source says it was obvious he was only there physically.
"He was there, but he wasn't with us. It was obviously a major trauma," the source says, adding that Gyllenhaal was "sitting in the director's chair staring off into space."
Ledger and Gyllenhaal shared the screen in "Brokeback Mountain," in which they played two cowboys who become romantically involved and are forced to hide their relationship."
Theresa,
Obviously you didn't bother to read the papers or listen to testimony at the hearings. Yes, there are many people who are having trouble getting employed here in Montgomery County.
If there is no problem with bathroom usage in MoCo, then why are you obsessed with it?
And, finally, who do you think you are to talk about "dubious notions of gender identity"? It's done. it's over. The scientific community and medical community have accepted these notions of gender identity increasingly for the past three decades. Even your hero, Paul McHugh, accepts gender identity these days, and he has had no influence on this discussion for twenty-five years. The reason there are hundreds of thousands of us living in our reassigned gender today is because of the progress of medical science. Your attempt to infuse your primitive religious views into a scientific discussion are doomed to failure.
You should also know that there is, as I've pointed out repeatedly, no Biblical basis for your transphobia. The prooftexts on gender change re: eunuchs are all honorific. But, of course, you don't care about that either.
"You should also know that there is, as I've pointed out repeatedly, no Biblical basis for your transphobia. The prooftexts on gender change re: eunuchs are all honorific."
You do have something of a point here, Dana. Correct me if I'm wrong, however, but weren't the eunuchs in the Bible not so by choice.
The dubiousness of which I spoke is the idea that there can be a gender identity which differs from one's chromosomal make-up.
Meanwhile, here's an interesting way to sum up the current political situation in America:
"There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party.
Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship.
Consider the stupid party. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
When Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.
Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?"
Red Baron said "No of this stuff is a problem here in MC, Randi.".
Mr. Teacher man and Dana pointed out that that isn't the case.
Red Baron said "You don't live here so you don't know this but people here are competing to get more trans in their establishments.".
You know what I love about your lies? They're so painfully obvious that I really don't need to refute them at all.
Red Baron said "People who bring up cases in the UK are really a hoot. Did you know there's a new movement among gays in Europe that considers SRS to be a sexist attack on gays?".
You think people who bring up such cases are a "hoot" and then you bring up such a case - that's a good one, jokes on you. Actually in some places sexual reassignment surgery is an attack on gays. In Iran gays are forced to have the male to female surgery whether they want it or not. The religionists consider this an apropriate treatment for gayness.
Red Baron said " Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.".
Not exactly the case.
David Vitters, a self described family values canidate.... has been caught and admitted to having extra marital sex with prostitutes while in Congress. He has NOT been asked to resign by the Republican Party!
Larry Craig, a self described family values canidate... has been caught and did not admit attempting to have a gay tryst while in Congress. He was drumed out by the Republican Party.
That's quite a double standard. If you're a heterosexual pervert you're welcome in the republican party, if you're a gay pervert they get rid of you.
"If you're a heterosexual pervert you're welcome in the republican party, if you're a gay pervert they get rid of you."
Good point, Randi. The Democrats aren't prejudiced.
They love all perverts.
Here's something to combine with a trip tp Graceland:
"Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out ministry, which equips churches to respond to homosexuality in a Christ-like way and offers hope and healing to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction, will stop in Memphis, Tenn., on Feb. 23.
Melissa Fryrear, Focus on the Family’s director of gender issues, speaks at Love Won Out conferences across the nation about her experience with homosexuality and shares her heart for individuals dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction.
“Biblically based Christians do not condone homosexual behavior; however, many have a loved one who is living homosexually,” she said. “Christians want to know how to uphold their religious convictions regarding sexuality while also responding with compassion. That is what the Love Won Out conference does; it balances truth and grace.”"
Yes, maybe it will help you get over your self-loathing.
Agreed.
By the way, AnonFreak. Do you sometimes work on Sundays? If so, it's a sin. Shame, shame, shame.
I believe Mr. Frank supported the trans-inclusive ENDA, but decided it was a wise political move to try to pass a non-inclusive ENDA. HRC took the same stance, and supported passage of the non-inclusive bill; this doesn't help HRC's image problem with being perceived as an agency for white gay men, or maybe women now too, but not so much people of color and trans people. I myself oppose the non-inclusive bill (if we can't have equality for our trans brothers and sisters, then I don't want it), but I know it would have added to my and many of my friends job security, so I understand the dilemma. I note proudly that Equality Virginia also opposed the non-exclusive bill; I don't know what position Equality Maryland took.
I will also point out that when we were lobbying for a gay-inclusive anti-harassment and non-discrimination policies for Fairfax County Public Schools, we, at my instigation, pushed for including sexual orientation, but not gender identity/expression. I myself didn't know better at the time, and GLSEN's national field office didn't recommend any changes in that approach. I don't know what stance GLSEN National would take at this point, but I would in retrospect take a different approach. I also know that if I went back to them for further changes, our supportive school board members would be very annoyed with me. The current policy reads "...and matters pertaining to sexuality (including sexual orientation)" which might be construed to be inclusive, but then again might not.
Anyone know what Equality Maryland said about ENDA, inclusive or not?
Robert
BTW, I heard something on Eliot in the Morning (DC 101 on the radio) yesterday as I was driving to work. A guy called Eliot and told him that he'd heard from his pastor that there was a law saying men could go into women's bathrooms in MoCo, and that they'd all signed a petition about it (I will point out that EITM is known for it's explicit discussions of sex and drug use, not for its religious messages). The guy said his pastor said this was the purpose of the law, and Eliot should try it by going into a women's bathroom in MoCo (the law isn't even in effect yet, is it?).
Eliot, bless his heart, said "That's interesting, I'll look into that," and cut the guy off.
rrjr
Red Baron said "Good point, Randi. The Democrats aren't prejudiced. They love all perverts.".
Its been one Republican pervert after another in the news. Its pretty clear who loves perverts, and it aint the Democrats.
Red Baron said "Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out ministry, which equips churches to respond to gayness in a Christ-like way...".
Obviously not. Jesus never spoke against gays in any way. If "Love" Won out responded to gays in a Christlike way they'd stop opposing gay equality and right to self-determination. They're really just a bunch of liars.
"By the way, AnonFreak. Do you sometimes work on Sundays? If so, it's a sin."
Hey, man, the sabbath is Saturday.
"Jesus never spoke against gays in any way."
I thought you said he wanted to kill gays.
Randi, do you believe in the teachings of Jesus?
No, I don't believe children should be stoned to death for being disobedient, no I don't believe people should be eternally tortured for innocentlly finding Christianity unbelievable.
Oh, OK. But you've changed your mind about Jesus wanting Christians to kill gays? Is that correct?
Hey, AnonFreak: do you want to kills gays? Let us know.
Nah. But Randi used to believe very strongly that Jesus wanted to. Just last week.
Now, Randi appears to have changed Randi's mind.
I'd just like to what in the Randi is going on here.
Is Randi lying? Was Randi lying before? Did Randi discover some secret source revealing the truth?
Churches face uncertain future as closures loom
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article3260539.ece
Mounting alarm has been created by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster when he questioned recently the future of some of the finest churches in his diocese. In Preston, which was granted city status to mark the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, there is talk of closure of a number of the best preserved Catholic churches in the country.
Please, AnonFreak. You have no solid ground to call anyone on this blog a liar.
"Please, AnonFreak. You have no solid ground to call anyone on this blog a liar."
Everyone who reads this has seen it, BizarroTeacherMan. The final doubt was erased when Randi changed the subject.
Back to what robertg said
. . . I think that if people are making this claim in churches, it should be brought to public attention.
I responded earlier but it wasn't posted.
There were three types of eunuchs in classical society:
a) those born eunuchoid
b) those who chose to be castrated
c) those who were forced into castration.
Obviously these are different biological situations, etc., but the important point is that intersex conditions were recognized AND RESPECTED by the ancient Jews and Greeks.
As for your chromosomal fetish, Theresa, that's old news. Even the IOC and your beloved Paul McHugh have given up on that. Human sexuality is far more complex and beautiful, and increasingly recognized as such by many people, but it is a given in the medical and scientific communities. Your rigid categorizations find no place in nature.
You better believe I am Bizarre, AnonFreak. It's funny... only crazy people deserve that all people deserve to be treated equally. Interesting...then you crazies should be all for it!
"An injustice anyway is a threat to justice everywhere."
Dr. MLK, Jr.
"b) those who chose to be castrated"
Any references for this, Dana?
"the important point is that intersex conditions were recognized AND RESPECTED by the ancient Jews"
Any references for this, Dana?
"As for your chromosomal fetish, Theresa, that's old news."
In the words of Aerosmith, dream on.
Andrea- not anon
I was outside tonight with 5 or 6 sad sad supporters of CRShower. You know, most of them looked normal- you couldn't tell that under the human looking facade were zombie bigots. Some people say if you believe that there is a hell-there is. As that group claims to be such believers - I guess eternal punishment for baseless hatred- sinat hinam- is waiting. Enjoy the heat, CRABCDEFGers
Anonymous said...
"Focus on the Family’s Love Won Out ministry
“Biblically based Christians do not condone homosexual behavior; however, many have a loved one who is living homosexually,” she said. “Christians want to know how to uphold their religious convictions regarding sexuality while also responding with compassion. That is what the Love Won Out conference does; it balances truth and grace.”"
--
Well we see where you get your "ethics" from. FOTF / Exodus - people who believe that gays should be imprisoned and put to death.
Any creep on the planet can use religion to justify imprisonment and murder. What is it about your support of our imprisonment and death that you feel is particularly inline with doing unto others as you would have done unto you?
Mr. Teacher Man said...
Hey, AnonFreak: do you want to kills gays? Let us know.
Anonymous said...
Nah. But Randi used to believe very strongly that Jesus wanted to. Just last week.
--
Find it, copy it, paste it, post it. Until you do, you're a liar.
If you want to begin learning about ancient Jewish approaches to intersex conditions, you can start with the Liberman Tosefta, Tractate Bikkurim, 2:2-2:5.
As far as your comments about chromosomal sex, I will stand by everything I've said here over the years. I'm the doctor; you're the fool.
So Andrea.
Two of the Muslims on our team were there tonight.
So Muslims are also bigots ?
Amused.
Theresa
Theresa said...
"So Andrea.
Two of the Muslims on our team were there tonight.
So Muslims are also bigots ?
Amused."
---
Would those be the same muslims that are going to burn in hell for all eternity according to your religious beliefs?
Even more amused.
Andrea- not anon
theresa- the level of your ignorance continues to amaze me(okay, not really- I expect ignorance from CRXYZ123 people). Anyone can be a bigot- any race, religion, nationality- it depends on who you hate- not on who you are. Understand now?
Today is "Tolerance Day" at my school. Our entire staff is looking forward to being part of it. I will let you all know how it goes.
It's sad that, even in Montgomery County, I head students saying "nigger", "fag", "jap",
"spick", "wet back", "terrorist".
Sad, indeed. I hope this training helps.
Andrea- not anon
Sadly, kids learn this stuff at home. Being a bigot isn't innate- although N.M. Anon suggests that in its post on the Sentinel article.
Hatred is a CRW family value.
Post a Comment
<< Home