I was on a lesbian message board and found a post that started with "I don't usually get political but ..." I responded to the post with this:
You stated:
"I don't usually get political but ..."
There are a lot of people who don't get political. When I'm on Gay.com cruising the chat boards and checking out profiles, most of them read: AVOID POLITICS in the political affiliation section. And sure enough, if a political discussion gets started, they're the first ones to say, "Are we still talking politics?"
You have every right to decide not to get political. I respect that. This is a call to those women who choose to step up to the plate and be involved.
We have a President, A Vice President (and the VP's out lesbian daughter) all working to gain control of this country for another 4 years. The Bush Administration has worked diligently to deny women the right to an abortion, African Americans equal access to public universities by trying to do way with Affirmative Action, and his Administration is working hard to keep the LGBT community from having equal rights in this country. A handful of people can't fight the battle so that everybody in the LGBT community can prosper from the results. So, when I read those profiles in Gay.com and I see "I Avoid Politics" in a lesbian's profile, I wonder if she'll be one of the first ones in line to get married when the rest of us have fought for her right to do so.
It just floors me why so many people have such a problem with one adult human being deciding for herself what other adult human being she wants to marry. This is one of those issues that's about control. Plain and simple. One group wants to maintain its power and control over another group by saying "heterosexuality is the only morally acceptable relationship there is". Once homosexuals have the right to marry, the states and federal gov't have essentially established a framework for removing the heterosexist elitism that dominates in almost all social organizations.
Think about it. There's nobody else in this country for "them" to feel superior over with the law pretty much backing them. Yes, some people will argue that "they" still have a superiority complex when it comes to different ethnic groups; however, "they" better pretend they like me when I work with them and keep their racist comments to themselves. It's just not acceptable to speak openly against anyone who is non-European in this country. While other people around you may be feeling the same way you feel, they'll never admit that in a public forum -- unless it's a KKK meeting. It's not acceptable to speak openly against women -- no matter how dumb you think the new blonde at work is. Those jokes are for private. It's just not acceptable to speak openly against other protected groups. If you do, you'll find yourself shunned, out of a job, and possibly the cause of a lawsuit for your employer.
But homosexuals, we're a different group. We've yet to be declared equal citizens in this country. That makes us fair game to any homophobic (regardless of that homophobe's race or gender). We're the one group that everybody can still feel superior too. Hey, there has to be someone on the bottom, right? That's the way it works. There has to be someone on the bottom so that even the heterosexual African American female (typically treated as the lowest class citizen in the USA) has someone to feel superior to.
That's part of what this is about -- at least for some people. Leaving someone on the bottom. When you have a social system, like the one we have in this country, that's based on the social ladder, we can't all be equal. So you look around and you decide: who do we leave on the bottom? The answer? The sexually deviant. That's what they call us. Sexually deviant. Nevermind that many straight White men have sex with their daughters (and sons) then go to church every Sunday and sing praises to the Lord. We are somehow the sexually deviant and we belong on the bottom.
Eventually though, there will come a day when the laws will change. That I know. Will it happen in my time? Probably not. But it will happen. There's too much energy in the air for it not to. There are too many straight, White, Christian, Conservative, mobilized scared-to-death males working to keep it from happening for it to not happen. All they're doing is pissin' people off and getting people off their asses to do something. You can only push people around for so long before they finally decide enough is enough. I think Stonewall was a very good example of that.
Homophobe Traced to Wrexham County Borough Council
I just love Google. Typing in just the [b]wrexham.gov.uk [/b] part of the domain I traced took me to the Wrexham County Borough Council's web page. It looks like a nice governmental establishment too. It even has a link to a section called "Who Represents Me?" It talks about Democracy and being the pillar of culture. Wow. Now, I'm just dying to know who that homophobe was who posted from there this morning. Ha!
Posted to our lesbian discussion board by someone from the UK (IP address traced to a government domain: 193.62.42.87 is gate.wrexham.gov.uk), was the following poll:
Is gayness wrong
The poll choices were:
yes
yeah
definitely
I, of course had to have a little fun with Gaypeoplesuck's poll and I added the following options to the poll:
only if you don't act gay in public
yes, because too many straight people raise homophobes
yes, because gay people steal all the good fashion tips
yes, because gay men are so much better looking than straight men
yes, because it just makes straight women jealous
I thoroughly enjoy the pathetic cowardliness of the homophobic jerks who always have something to say, but say it behind the mask. If you're gonna be against something (or even for something) say it loud and proud, and put your name to it.
I stumbled across the Houston Gay & Lesbian Political Caucus, the South's oldest organization formulated to work towards establishing equal rights for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people. "The group lobbies elected officials and educates the public on GLBT equality and other social justice issues." The Houston GLPC also has an affiliated Political Action committee that screens and endorses political candidates. Wow. Who wouldn't ever thunk it -- in the good 'ole South? I shouldn't be so critical of the South, I'm a born and bred southern girl currently on hiatus in WI. I'm still a Southerner at heart, because to be honest with you, I've noticed a distinct difference in the way Southern racists behave and Midwestern racists behave. From my experience, Southern racists never pretend to be your friend. You're given the courtesy of down home, Southern, honest hatred. In WI, the racism is more undercover. You don't find out your neighbor's a racist bastard until election time, war time (and everyone who's non Native English speaking is a "gawd damn Iraqi"), and time to settle those nasty neighborly disputes. I'm starting to miss the South. What was a Sista thinking when she left that climate to bask in the chilly glory of 0 degree midwestern days.
When disagreeing with the gay boys about their sad attempt to make Mary Cheney look like a victim of oppression, I received:
. . . why is it that satire and irony used to make a political point are always taken so litterally by the people who are being attacked by the issue? Is there own identity so fragile that attempts to bring about a different POV are considered threatening?
Too many of us gays/lesbians are too self-closeted.
The word is spelled LITERALLY. Ain't nothin' closeted about me. I just disagree with ya, sweetie.
I had the privilege of seeing Barbara Smith (a Black lesbian feminist, author and scholar) in person when she was a guest lecturer at my undergrad alma mater. Ms. Smith's lecture was incredibly engaging and insightful. Watching the way she affected her audience was probably the most dynamic part of the evening. She was the root and spirit of lesbian feminism, long before people like Ani DiFranco could even write their first talkin' out the side of their mouth lyric. I remember Ms. Smith mentioning the divisions among lesbians of various ethnic groups, even in the 70s, when you'd think there would be more group congruency. But oh no, even then, everyone had their own agenda. And that's the problem. Everyone has an agenda.
Lesbian women are so grossly misunderstood by not just those who are passerbyers in ourland, but we misunderstand each other often, too. We're not all the same. We don't have the same needs, contrary to popular belief. For lesbian women of color, we have the needs of immediate and extended family to consider -- especially since people of color tend to be less nuclear in nature. It's difficult to fight for the needs of your group when you can't accurately assess what the needs of your group are. And so, we scatter and go our own way. We scatter instead of trying to understand each other. We scatter and do exactly what they (and I'll explain who "they" are later) want us to do. We feed the fire and make the battle for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Rights even harder than it needs to be.
It's okay to be different and work together so that everyone in the group can eventually have whatever it is they need. It's ok, but can we do it?
Read all the reader reviews of Barbara Smith's works. You'll have to scroll to the bottom of the page.
That must be the safest word to use when you want to insult someone. I hear it all the time: "that's so gay." It means:
That's so dumb. That's so stupid. That's so fucked up. That's so wrong. That's so strange. That's so weird.
Now, if you say, "eww, you're so gay," (try to imagine me saying it in a loud, teenager-like squealy girl kinda voice), that means:
You're so dumb. You're so stupid. You're so fucked up. You're so wrong. You're so strange. You're so weird.
Now, I wanna know why that's ok to say? Here's why I think teenagers say it: Because it's okay to be a homophobic in public, but you can't be a racist in public. Because it's okay to be a homophobic in public, but it's not okay to be a sexist in public. Because it's okay to be a homophobic in public, but you can't say bad things about disabled people in public.
See, the teenagers who use the word "gay" in a negative way have been trained by society (primarily their parents) to play the game. They know which groups of people they can make fun of and which groups of people they can't make fun of. So far, gay people are one of the few groups of people left who are still fair game in this country. Teenagers who don't use the word "gay" in a negative way, most likely are the same teenagers who would never even think of making fun of a disabled person -- in public or at home.
So, someday, when it's no longer politically correct to make fun of gay people in public, what group will teenagers look to then to make a mockery out of?
The "Send Dick Cheney a Birthday Wish" letter is circulating like hotcakes in the newsgroups. It reminds me of how quickly we jump on bandwagons without thinking issues through. Someone sends us an email and says, "Here, pass this on" and we start clickin' the forward button and sending it off to our friends, family, and all the mailing lists we belong to. But there's always someone like me (dontcha just hate people like me) who says, "Now wait just a minute here. What's this?" and takes the time to actually read stuff before I send it.
I think the problem is that no one really wants to read it -- I mean REALLY read it. Here we have a very public lesbian figure (the VP's daughter) working to help the Bush Administration get re-elected. That speaks volumes, so of course you have to create a crafty email that paints her out to be some domestic abuse victim being mistreated and forced into submission. You then have to hope that your email speaks louder than the image of the VP's lesbian daughter working diligently to help Bush and his anti-gay regime get re-elected.
The email speaks of her "silence" as if it's forced, as if she's being forced to keep quiet about her own personal views about lesbian & gay marriage. Perhaps Cheney's daughter has decided that some issues on Bush's agenda are more important to her than securing the right for homosexuals to get married. Some members of the LGBT community do have other issues that are important to them. Maybe it's best for lesbian & gay rights groups that she does keep quiet -- especially if she doesn't see the importance in securing gay marriage rights, or if there are other things that are more important to her than securing gay marriage rights. Can you imagine the VP's daughter making a public statement against gay marriage? Talk about a few hundred extra points for the Bush team. So what is her silence all about? We don't know. Do we really want to know?
And I knew this question would come. Can you guess who it came from? A white male:
Dont take this question the wrong way but i couldn't help noticing that your blog gives links to black, latin and jewish lesbians, but not to white lesbians. In this day and a age of political correctness i was just wondering if this could be thought of as racist ?
Always the first ones to suggest reverse discrimination when they're not included, or when they're excluded.
Taking a look at George W. Bush's biography, I see no links to, nor reference of anything related to promoting the equality of women. Does that make him a sexist? I see no links to, or any reference to anything related to promoting the equality of Blacks, Latinas, Jewish people, or anyone else who is non-European in origin. Does that make him a bigot? (some of you are nodding yes). "In this day and a age of political correctness," I'd think the President of the United States would know better.
Hey! Catchy title, eh? That's to grab the attention of all the straight folks who get caught up in things like auto accidents and domestic disputes in public. Ya just can't help but look.
If you support the right of all adult Americans to decide for themselves who they can marry, please visit MillionForMarriage and sign the petition. You don't have to be a homosexual and your neighbors will never know ya did it. It only takes a minute of your time.
"God said in the beginning he created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," Koger said on January 19. "If you don't got a womb, then you're a man."
In a statement released Friday, the South Carolina NAACP said her comments do not represent the group: "The remarks by Dr. Sheila Koger regarding sexual preference did not represent the views of the NAACP and were inappropriate during a service designed to bring together the various sectors of the community." Lonnie Randolph Jr., president-elect of the South Carolina NAACP, told the newspaper he was offended by Koger's speech.
The NAACP has its faults and isn't exactly the organization Dr. King would have hoped it would be. Somewhere along the way, the NAACP lost its focus on what's important -- the advancement of "colored people." Take a look at their website and start digging around. It's all about the money these days. I'm sure they were aware of Dr. Koger's views before they allowed the woman to open her mouth. Someone had to be. And if they weren't, shame on them. Her language skills could sure use some work for a "Dr". I'm sure the press had a GREAT time repeating that awful quote and tacking the initials D.R. after it -- especially since it was a Black female D.R.
The apology was appreciated; however, the comments come at a bad time -- especially when many other prominent African American people & organizations are backing the efforts of Gay & Lesbian Civil Rights groups.
Perhaps Dr. Koger should head on over to the Bush camp. Their language skills seem about the same.
Quoted from a New York Times Article written by ELISABETH BUMILLER ([b]Bush Makes Danger His Campaign Theme[/b]):
"You have to say how you're going to protect America, not just what Bush does wrong," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has criticized the administration for not spending more on domestic security. "I don't think most Americans are totally satisfied with the Bush fight against terrorism, but they certainly prefer it to a weaker or nonexistent one."
Hey, ya gotta do something when you're desperate to win an election and your name is George W. Bush. He's not doing anything that politicians and people in positions of power haven't done for centuries. He's appealing to basic human fear.
Fear of the unknown. It's that same "fear of the unknown" that the powers that be used to divide men and women when Black men were given the right to vote long before even White women were given the right to vote: "what's gonna happen if the women get some power?" It's that same "fear of the unknown" that MEN used to divide White Women and Black Women during the onset of the Feminist movement: "She's different from you. What do you have in common with Black women? What will happen if she gets more rights than you?".
I don't see why this pathetic tactic the Bush Administration is using surprises anyone. He is, afterall, a byproduct of a fucked up system of wealthy, European, Straight, male superiority in this country. He learned from the best.
Questions about President Bush's military service were raised at last night's Democratic debate by Peter Jennings who called charges of desertion from the Texas Air National Guard "reckless" and "not supported by the facts." However, meticulously collected evidence suggests that there are continuing questions.
ABC News anchor Peter Jennings questioned General Wesley Clark about whether he should have disputed supporter Michael Moore's assertion that President Bush was a "deserter" from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. Mr. Jennings said, "At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush - he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a 'deserter.' Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."
My response to that: so what if he was a deserter, at least he wasn't gay! Deserters are better than homos in the military anyday.
As you know, Cheney, who has an openly-lesbian daughter, said during the 2000 vice presidential debate that gay marriage was an issue to be left to the states, and that the federal government shouldn't get involved. Now that he's up for re-election, Cheney told the Rocky Mountain News two weeks ago that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage - an amendment that could wipe out every current and future gay rights law, including domestic partners registries, hospital visitation rights, and more. His gay daughter's response? She's heading up her father's re-election campaign and not saying a word.
It's time to expose Dick Cheney's hypocrisy.
Personally, I feel if she wants to spend her time and energy heading up her father's relection campaign knowing full well that he supports a ban on gay marriage (and she chooses to keep her mouth shut while she does it), that's her problem. No one is forcing her to do so. It's still a free country, even for the Vice President's lesbian daughter. As I was telling someone else in a discussion I had the other day, some lesbian & gay people could care less about "gay rights". They're happy where they are in their lives. Things are good for them. They have no plans to rock the boat. I'm not saying that this is the case with Cheney's daughter; however, she must be quite content with whatever Daddy and the Bush administration are doing or else she wouldn't be spending her time working for them. Life must be good for her.
Let's not be so quick to call Dick Cheney the hypocrit here.
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) -- Doug Braun and his partner of 14 years couldn't wait for Monday morning, the first day they could go to City Hall to place their names in a registry recognizing them as domestic partners.
They will walk away with a notarized piece of paper that legally means nothing, but to Braun, 42, and his partner, Brian DeWitt, 48, it will be the most important day of their lives.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
