Arkansas Blog

Blinc's an anti-gay bigot? Please. I had this a month ago, though I was trying for subtlety.

"You are NOT third seed at the Dinah Shore Palm Springs Golf Classic nor Billie Jean King's new BFF at the Los Angeles Women's Tennis Tournament, if you're keeping up with me here."

She's the Tom Cruise of Arkansas politics and just like all the other closet dykes.

Blanche Lincoln is butcher than Rosie O'Donnell. This is SUCH old news.

I can't decide, Norma, what's more obvious: Your homophobia or your misogyny. Either way, you're a meanspirited prick.

You and Blanche should get along fine.

I'm ready to vote Republican just to get her out of office.

Norma

How dare you insult Gays (Alternative Lifestyle Women) by calling Blanc a dyke? That is an insult to dykes.....

Homophobia like this can not be tolerated in our society. People like you must be rooted out and silenced. I propose that the new gay anti-hate laws include making such comments on blogs such as this great one. Until then, we must call you names and insult you into submission. Let's get Norma fellow Liberals. I will go first.

Norma, you are such as biggot and racist that I bet you even bleach your teeth after eating Oreo Cookies. I bet you never drink chocolate milk (since you are a racist) or ever eat anything with the word sweet (since your are a flaming homophobe) in it...i.e.., Sweet Corn, Sweet Potatoe, Sweet Tea....

Get a life and move out of the 19th and 20th Century you fucking idiot...

Catfish,
The Liberal POS

The point is that blaming homophobia on someone by labeling them homosexual is itself homophobia. Just flush the POS and use your brain instead.

The point is that blaming homophobia on someone by labeling them homosexual is itself homophobic. Just flush the POS and use your brain instead.

I can't decide, Norma, what's more obvious: Your homophobia or your misogyny. Either way, you're a meanspirited prick.

by JohnA

I had no idea you did comedy too.

There simply seems to be no bottom limit to Blanches willingness to vote to harm, oppress, or bankrupt the lower 95 percent.

IF you're GLBT (it's the BT part that REALLY makes their hair catch fire), and it's Arkansas - YOU LOSE!!! I had not heard the story of Mark Pryor's cancer, and Max summed that up. As for Lincoln, well.........it's all been said. Pathetic, and worse. It's one thing to pander to money/power, another to pander to IGNORANCE and its little brother bigotry. I'll write her, and get another non-response response, like always... THEM kind of "small c" Christians - just like Catfish, the......Piece Of Shit - just suck and we'll all have to wait for them to die out as they are COMMITTED ======= to ignorance!

Sweet bleeding Jesus on the crossed beams with iron nails.

Norma is a homophobe?

When did down become up on the Arkansas Blog?

Can Max please invert the posts, and put the names first instead of last?

Would save me a bunch of needless reading.

I just tuned in and read the headline before any of the comments.

I shouted to WBW, who was in another room, "I read where Blanche is OK with discrimination against gays.''

WBW, without missing a beat, shouted back, "If she's not gay, we're not.''

My thoughts exactly. I've felt that way since she was campaigning in the '90s in her Jeep while looking like a little tomboy.

This announcement pretty much seals it for us.

Norma, WBW and I totally agree with you. I just wish the producers of "Outrage'' would put a tail on her. I wouldn't be surprised if she has a "friend'' in the DC area.

And, John A. Arkansawyer, why all the venom tonight? Norma is definitely on the side of the LGBT.

Holy cow...can't keep up with all the blog's twists/turns...giving me whiplash. Oh well...why bother wondering anything about Blanche? Her voting record combined with her millions in corporate donations make her 'leanings' plain as day. For at least eight years she's been supporting most things I'm against and withholding support for what's important to me; so she could be a hate-filled purple polka dotted Republican transsexual from Mars who's racist and homophobic and...I it wouldn't matter 'cause I couldn't think less of her than I do right now.

Catfish...just pitiful...and more proof that conservatives don't have an ounce of humor amongst em.

Sistertoldja,

Some of it goes back a month or two, to the thread where a less than optimal photo of Sue Madison was posted, and various posters, with "Norma" in the lead, decided it was okay to piss all over a woman because they didn't like her looks. That's a nasty form of sexism and misogyny. That would be this thread here: http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2009/07/bill_to_abolish_lottery.aspx

(I'll note there's a person in that thread I know through church who expressed her differences with Sue Madison without sinking to such depths. I disagree with her, but not with the decent and humane way in which she expressed herself.)

Now, as to the misogyny and homophobia expressed toward Blanche Lincoln (whose politics are indeed homophobic) in this thread, well, look:

In this sexist society, a woman in a leadership position traditionally held by males is damned if she does (that is, looks feminine) and damned if she doesn't (that is, looks tomboyish instead). What's more, by blaming the homophobia of a politician on the politician supposedly being closeted, you are excusing the broader homophobia overwhelmingly exercised by straight homophobes. Instead, you are blaming homophobia on--who else?--a homosexual. (That's not to excuse the hypocritical homophobia often expressed by closeted politicians, just to put it in perspective.) Think back as to how frequently in these comments some right-wing bigot gets accused of being homosexual (and why should that be the accusation, instead of the hypocrisy? Why, because of homophobia). To read these threads, the only homophobes are closeted homosexuals. That's a comfortable, safe way for straight people to argue.

I myself do not seek comfort or safety in my politics. The pursuit of justice is seldom safe or comfortable.

As to the venom, I try to express it mostly toward Norma, because I do not believe Norma is a human being speaking his or her mind from behind a pseudonym. I believe Norma is a created character, not unlike Bob Lancaster's Assmunch. I might call Assmunch a dickwad, but I would not say it about Bob Lancaster. If I were wrong about that, then I would be behaving in an uncivil manner toward a fellow human being, and I would regret that--but I think I'm right.

I know it's dangerous to step into the middle of a catfight, but I'll make a vain attempt anyway and try to get back to the topic. Since when is an "equal" right considered a "special" right? Of course logis is not one of Blank's strengths.

If Senator Lincoln is opposed to "special rights" does that mean she opposes taking advantage of the universal health care open to her, her family, and other members of Congress?

Does this mean Senator Lincoln believes in paying postage for the letters she sent out, instead of charging them to the American taxpayer??

pollen,

I've got an answer: An equal right becomes a special right when one believes the person whose rights are in question is not equal to you. In this case, it's because Blanche Lincoln doesn't value gays or lesbians as though they were equal to her.

Good point John. One more thought: If this passes, won't it outlaw "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

"...As to the venom, I try to express it mostly toward Norma, because I do not believe Norma is a human being speaking his or her mind from behind a pseudonym. I believe Norma is a created character, not unlike Bob Lancaster's Assmunch..."

Though I avoid wondering about the veracity of posters, just choose to believe em, I believe you're on to something, john. But I chose to believe there was some literary license occurring primarily because, well...I wouldn't like much about norma's character, else wise. Materialism turns me off...name dropping ditto...hanging for freebies ditto...but I love gender/gay/liberal activism and a fun wit. Different paths to the same destination, after all.

Only norma knows for sure...

Thanks Sister, I was having trouble recalling the HBO special I watched just last night. I had Outrage Tivo'ed for a few weeks and finally mag and I watched it last night. As the credits were rolling at the end I wondered if the entire Arkansas representation to Congress is gay? That would explain why some mysterious force forces every single one of them to vote more Republican than some Republicans.

If I had a black heart I'd use this space to list all the clues that can be Googled quickly to back up this idea of an entirely gay Arkansas delegation to Congress, but I'll let you all do your own homework. Just pick a 10 year segment of US political history and you can find stranger events than what I'm suggesting. Often it appears that Congress is Animal House, especially after hours....and in the dark. We know next to nothing about our representatives personal lives. We could have a man on dog sexer up there and we'd never know it.

Whatever it is, someone's got control of our Democratic representatives and they're an embarrassment to the Democratic Party...not to mention their votes guarantee Arkansas stays at the bottom of the shit pile forever. That's a warm, fuzzy, story about David and Mark Pryor, but I've had too many miserable years of FK'ed up politics to believe it has much truth to it or holds a clue to how Mark Pryor will vote in the future.

John A,

I certainly don't have an ax to grind with you and I see some of your points.

I agree that homophobia isn't entirely related to those who are closeted, but I do think the closeted politicians serve to promote/exacerbate those feelings. In fact, they are the ringleaders.

Did you watch the movie "Outrage''? It turned my stomach.

Right now, if someone put a gun to my head and said that I either had to vote for Blanche Lincoln or Jesus Jim Holt, I'd likely vote for Holt (that's with a gun to my head, remember). That's also taking into account that Jesus Jim wants to exterminate people like me. (Since there's no gun to my head, I'll be voting for a third-party candidate).

Fact is, I detest hypocrisy that much. Blanche has a (D) by her name but is more loathsome than any Republican. At least those guys have the guts to put an (R) by their names...we know what we're getting.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that right-wingers get called "gay'' on this blog for no reason at all. I've called out these "prominent and respected'' posters for that very reason. It's like they're in a playground fight and that's the worst name they can think of to demean someone.

As for Norma...I can't attest to who she is or what she does. Heck, I can't attest that she's even a she. I've never met this person.

But I will say this...This person (Norma) fights harder for gay rights than any gay person I've ever met. This person (Norma) keeps the subject of gay equality front and center at every opportunity. This person (Norma) cares more about my rights than any family member.

No, I don't know Norma personally. But I'll defend her like she's defended gay people every single day on this blog.

It will be because of people like Norma that gays will achieve equality one day.

I get pissed off at Norma from time to time, but I consider her a sister.

Again Norma, thanks for what you do.

Oh for Senators with just an ounce of bravery to represent us....

Of course it is pretty shitty that in 2009 on has to be "brave" to vote in favor of protecting folks from getting fired for who they sleep with or what sex they feel they truly are....actually it is pretty shitty that in 2009 someone could get fired for these things too.

Someday, Sistertoldja, I'd like to sit down to that beer or three with you and WBW. I'll buy the first round.

I didn't see Outrage, but I know a bit about it. The hypocrisy gets to me, too, but I had another reaction (assuming I understand correctly): Once those closeted politicians were out, their homophobia tended to go away.

"We are young despite the years...We are hope despite the times." Me too, Michael, me too.

This is just the tip of the iceburg as Senator Blank goes....

She supported enshrining the Arkansas Constitution with hate (Amendment 83, passed in 2004)
She voted for government handouts to corporate farmers
She voted for the draconian Bankruptcy "reforms"
She opposes EFCA

Is this the 60 member "majority" we voted for? A typical Arkansas DINO more interested in currying favors with the Farm Bureau and the East Arkansas closeted Republican farmers than she is with the working people and families of Arkansas.

I welcome that offer, John A.

You'd love us...we drink, cuss and discuss politics & sports. (actually, that's just me. WBW is the nice one who is sober and is of sane mind).

WOW....You all miss the point.

The one thing Blanche is these days is a REALIST.

She is running hard to the right. Very hard to the right. It doesn't matter what the vote is, or what the issue is, she is terrified that Obama is a weight around her neck right now. She will cast any vote to give herself distance from any White House position.

When the big day comes for the final health care reform vote...the White House better have 61 votes in their pocket....because Blanche is going to hit the no lever.

You all have amnesia. Obama lost Arkansas by 20 points. Thats not my opinion or a subjective thought. He lost here by a whopping 20. Now he's a lot less popular than he was election day.

Thats why Gilbert raised so much money last month. Yes..Blanche has $4 million....but this time around I'm not sure any amount of money can help her in the anti Obama referendum next November. It doesn't matter if the issue is taxes or gay rights or health care.

By the way...if you haven't watched it...the movie about Harvey Milk is wonderful. Sean Penn turns in a perfect performance. It's really a great look at the early days of the gay rights discussion.

There's something to that, StrangeTimes. On the other hand, my opinion is that the Clintonista/FOB leadership (their motto: "We aren't bigoted, just racist") of the Arkansas Democratic Party stuck their collective thumbs way up their asses during the 2008 general election out of pique, spite, fear, and racism rather than help Obama. If Obama delivers on health care--and while he's not going to satisfy me, he'll deliver far more than The Clenis did--then their power can more easily be broken.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Isn't it nice to be in a fight with high stakes and a prize worth winning?

FOR IMMIEDIATE RELEASE
Contact : Drew Pritt drew@prittforarkansas.com

Drew Pritt is challenging Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) to stop playing outdated sectionalism arguments as well as encourages her to vote like a true Democrat.

"What is the one difference between Blanche Lincoln and say Dale Bumpers, John Breaux, Bob Graham, Fritz Hollings, and Charles Robb? Those are all "Southern Democrats" who voted for ENDA in 1996, while Blanche Lincoln in opposing ENDA joins the same company as Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond," said Pritt. "That is sad for someone who is running as a Democrat....who succeeded Dale Bumpers. Civil Rights is still the nation's unfinished business. It did not end with the signing of the 1964 Civil Right's Act. Imagine how disturbing it is, in 2009, that in most states an employee can be fired because of sexual orientation or gender identity. Many hard-working Americans live every day with the knowledge that, no matter what their talents and abilities, they can be denied a job simply because of who they are. Many young students grow up knowing that no matter how hard they study, the doors of opportunity will be locked by prejudice and bigotry when they enter the workplace. I challenge Senator Lincoln to tell the Democratic Party....and Arkansas voters why she joins lockstep with the likes of Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond in barring those doors of opportunity? You would think that fifty-two years after the Central High school crisis, that Arkansas would not still have a U.S. Senator who continues to foster discrimination!"

Pritt says Lincoln's assertion that supporting ENDA is allowing a "special right" is a ridiculous assertion.

"Senator Lincoln seems to enjoy 'special rights' like using taxpayer money to send out by franking privileges a justification for why she supports allowing discrimination. She also likes the 'special right' of having taxpayer money pay for health care for herself and her family while she opposes that right for 836,000 Arkansans," says Pritt. "Senator Lincoln should be careful as her language is similar to that of Ralph Reed when he was at the Christian Coalition when he said, No one should have special rights or privileges, or minority status because of their sexual behavior. We don't have it for people who are polygamists, we don't have it for people who have affairs on their wives or husbands. I wonder if Senator Lincoln by opposing ENDA, by opposing EFCA, by opposing a Public Option for Health Care while quoting Ralph Reed and voting like Jesse Helms might be more comfortable in the Republican Party!"
Pritt broke a barrier in Arkansas by becoming the first member of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities to seek statewide office. If he were elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, he would be the first member of the GLBT Community to openly serve in that body.

In 2009, he started two organizations that benefit the GLBT Community. MsTer Gay America New is a pageant system for women who do the art of male impersonation. Pritt says he saw a huge market for female impersonation (drag queen) but not a lot of equality or opportunity for women. So he started a system for women who take part in that artform. He also started Equality Arkansas which recently garnered some press.

"Equality Arkansas is really an effort by myself to provide a group to help defeat anti-discriminatory measures while at the same time providing a voice for those who are in the GLBT Community who are not as activist but believe our community needs one more voice speaking out against intolerance and injustice," says Pritt.

Pritt is an avid sportsman; enjoying hunting and fishing. He also loves Arkansas Razorback sports, American League baseball, is a gourmet cook, and reading. He is a member of the CHI PHI Fraternity, the oldest social fraternity in the country. He currently resides in Little Rock where he is an active member of Epsicopal Diocese of Arkansas. He is a member of the Lions Club, the Arkansas Democratic Party, Stonewall Democrats, the Arkansas Black Democratic Caucus, the Arkansas Hispanic Democratic Caucus, the National Cathedral Association, the National Rifle Association, and Diamond State Rodeo Association.
-0-

Drew,

In all honesty, that release won't win you any votes. In fact, that turned me off and I'm gay.

Here's a Facebook group for Arkansans working together to persuade Senator Pryor to come out in support of ENDA:

"Let's Tell Arkansas Senator Pryor: We Want Job Equality Now!" More info here: http://bit.ly/5c4Mb

Full disclosure: it's my group. Please come join us! We've got 56 votes in the Senate - we need Senator Pryor!

"Drew,

In all honesty, that release won't win you any votes. In fact, that turned me off and I'm gay."

LOL...and more proof there's humor everywhere...well, almost everywhere. Thanks for the morning laugh, sister.

And, drew...she's right, re-work the release...or ignore us and do whatever the hell makes ya happy.

Ah, I get to be the bad guy. What we don't need is an affirmitive action bill for gays too. Blanche finally is doing something I agree with. Never thought I would see the day.

I am voting Republican next election just to get her "special rights" out of office. What a blatant ignoramus.

The official translation of Sen Lincoln's letter just got released. Here it is:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (S. 1584) which would prevent fearful backwards bigots like myself from firing you because you are different than us. However, I do not want to lose my special rights as a heterosexual and I believe that if I do what is morally right and take a stand against discrimination that I may not get to stay in the Senate much longer. You can be sure I will remember that I am more special than you when this or similar legislation is considered in the U.S. Senate.....

Larry,

You made an interesting point last night...one that left me pondering this question as I went to bed.

You said, "IF you're GLBT (it's the BT part that REALLY makes their hair catch fire), and it's Arkansas - YOU LOSE!!!''

The more I think about it, the more I agree. I may be flamed for the following, but here goes...

My personal fight for equality is based on the fact that I was born this way. I knew I was gay at age 7, which is about the same time heteros know they're attracted to the opposite sex. Countless studies have proved that homosexuality is genetic.

First, I have nothing against the BTs. We're in the same boat to some extent but they're sinking our proverbial ship. They serve to undermine the LGs argument and here's why...

Bisexuals want a "choice.'' The primary argument against same-sex equality is that it's a "choice.'' This isn't a choice for me. If I "chose'' a man, I'd be sentenced to a loveless, sexless life with no emotional fulfillment.

Granted, it's likely that they're wired to want both. Fine. No problem. But don't you see that they're destroying the LG argument in the meantime? First things first.

And then we have the transgendered. I have more sympathy for them than the bisexuals. I can't sympathize because I have no idea how they feel. I love being in the body I was born in, which makes me no better than the heteros who criticize me. Unfortunately, there's still an "ick'' factor associated with the transgendered. I have to admit, I'm still trying to evolve when it comes to the transgendered.

So yes, Larry, I agree with your premise. If it were just LGs, as opposed to LGBT, we'd be further along in our fight for equality. Though I love the BTs, I wish the LGs could pave the way for their rights.

I think our "movement'' doesn't see the big picture. Let the LGs get in the door and we'll get the BTs in later. Otherwise, no one's getting in.

Sistertoldja,

I'm not going to flame you--if anything, I'm more anxious to have that beer with you--but I am going to disagree.

I don't think the main argument against your rights is that you being a lesbian is a choice. The main argument against your rights is that the people who oppose your rights hate you for being a lesbian, no matter what the reason. It isn't rational and it isn't open to fact or reason. In many cases, it's just based on the accepted ideas they've learned since youth; in others, it's based on a selective and ignorant reading of some sacred text.

Very few of the people who still hate you will change their minds. Most of those who could be reasoned with have been. Now the rest have to age and die, which they are doing.

The strongest argument I know of for your rights is not that you have no choice but to be a lesbian. The strongest argument for your rights is our common humanity and your consequent right to make your own life, whether you come to desire it by choice or by nature. When you abandon those with whom, as you correctly observe, you have so much in common, that breaks those bonds of common humanity and weakens your most powerful argument.

Gee, Blanche says she's against "special rights" for gay people. Maybe she'd like to give up her "special rights" to not be discriminated against as a woman?

As for her sexuality: rumors have been around for years. Just sayin'.

I'm sure there have been, spunkrat. It's rare that a woman rises in leadership of any sort (but especially in traditionally male fields such as politics or business) without rumors about her lesbianism accompanying her. It's that darned sexism thing.

John A,

Right after I posted that I told WBW what I had written and she agreed with you. Actually, she was was very vehement in her disagreement with me.

I guess my problem is logic. I assume if people are logical, they'll see it my way. I'm attempting to appeal to the left side of their brain.

But issues such as these are not based on logic. They're based on emotion (I'm guilty of this, as well).

Therefore, I still stand behind my logical argument but I see your point (and WBW's) as well.

We're still on the for the beers,

Sistertoldja

Sister-

As usual, a fascinating discussion involving gender identification, sexual orientation and constitutional equality for Americans - thanks to YOU!

And, as usual, I've always turned to science for objective information.

Puritanical Americans are notoriously squeamish re: sexuality of any kind, especially compared to Western Europe. Uncomfortable enough for Americans to discuss "the birds and bees" with their children, much less "the birds and birds" or "bees and bees" (homosexuality) or "birds and bees in any combination" (bisexuality).

For years, my favorite studies of "bisexual" men are those where scientists place "measuring devices" around the men's widdle pee-pees, then show them various kinds of porn (male-female, female-female, male-male). Basically, we're talking cock-rings with electrodes, here.

"And what aroused the men who called themselves bisexual? Three-fourths of them were aroused only by the images of men; one-fourth of them were aroused only by the images of women; and none of them were aroused by the images of both men and women. That is, their arousal patterns were indistinguishable from either the gay or straight men. In the memorable headline of the New York Times, the 'bisexual' men in the study were either 'Straight, Gay, or Lying.' "

To put it more, er, pointedly . . . "Indeed, with respect to sexual arousal and attraction, it remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists." (From "Psychological Science.")

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8759

Self-identified "bisexual" men, for the most part though not "all," are gay men in various stages of denial or straight men who occasionally engage in same-sex play.

Only in the last decade or so have truly objective studies been performed on transgendered people - especially children. Like homosexuality, but totally unlike "bisexuality," gender identity is also apparently established in the womb.

I can only imagine the heartbreak transgendered children and adults endure. The appalling ignorance, fear and hatred of that condition (engendered by religious brainwashing and forced yet false conformity to dogma over facts) sentences transgendered human beings to often tragically painful lives.

Yet stories like this one, Brandon's story, and more objective research are at least beginning to make a dent in society's ugly willful ignorance.

Read Brandon's story. It's fascinating. And it's but one of thousands of such stories, usually with less happy endings.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/transgender-children

At least Brandon's parents aren't blinded by religious ignorance and hate. They actually LOVE their child just as God made him. Brandon's "known" since birth that he was a girl. (Please read the story.)

"Brandon, God made you a boy for a special reason," she [Brandon's mother] told him before they said prayers one night when he was 5, the first part of a speech she'd prepared. But he cut her off: "God made a mistake," he said.

Brandon's parents, braver than most, have accepted their child for who he is and are raising him accordingly, instead of forcing "him" into stereotypical gender roles and creating yet another broken, self-loathing human spirit to throw out into the world.

I certainly see your point, Sister-, about including BTs in the LGBT equal rights equation. BTs don't conform to either the hetero- or homo- roles, and so appear even MORE threatening and discomforting to many people.

Thoughtless, uninformed people, may I add.

But they are Americans too. They also deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without suffering the discrimination, punishment, bullying, bashing and even deaths served up by religionists determined to make America a theocracy. They too deserve at least an attempt at understanding, and love, and lives free from vicious irrational hate.

So where WOULD you put BTs in the fight for equality, Sister- ?

I happen to agree that they seem to "hurt" LG's chances for winning the fight for constitutional equality in America.

But only because they add another, perhaps even more demanding, layer to our understanding of God-given human sexuality and the goal of equality for America's citizens.

That's not their "fault."

It's ours.

That's not their "fault."

It's ours. By NormaB.

**********************************

Of course it's not their fault, Norma. And it's not my fucking fault that we live in a bigoted world.

All I know is that it's not my choice to be who I am. It is, however, the choice for a bisexual to swing both ways and a transgendered person to get a sex change. That's a choice.

I feel I'm being weighed down by those making choices right now. Let the "choice'' people come later in the fight for equality. The LGs aren't making choices. This is who we are.

We're on the same side, Sister-.

So I repeat:

"Where WOULD you put BTs in the fight for equality, Sister- ?"

Would you "wait" until LGs get theirs? Would you "include" BTs in the fight for equality, as the LGBT moniker implies? Or what?

Curious as to your thinking on this.

Thanks.

Meanwhile, Sister- ,

The Obama administration is denying asylum and deporting the legal husband (Mass.) of a married gay American man who has spent about $250,000 in legal fees since January to reunite with his husband, whom he hasn't seen since then. (If they were straight? Non-issue.)

For all the happy talk at Human Rights organization dinners, THAT'S the Obama administration's hateful vote-getting homophobia in action.

Sure, this administration is "better than the alternative."

That's like saying herpes is better than HIV. Which do you prefer? Either way, we're going to spread infection.

Sister-,

I sometimes get so pissed off I forget to clicky.

I'm always amused by the citation of mainstream media stories about scientific topics, and this is why: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

So take Norma's "scientific proof" about male bisexuality with a grain of salt. One study isn't enough to prove anything. On poking around, I find quite a few critiques of it, as well as citations of similar studies that show female bisexuality to have the sort of physiological basis this study claims does not exist. But let's take the study at face value. It doesn't change my inclusively wide stance: I don't think civil rights should be conditioned on degree of sexual arousal.

People have a right to the consensual sexual behavior the desire, period. End of sentence.

People have a right to the consensual domestic arrangements they desire, period. End of sentence.

People have a right to equal treatment under the law, period. End of sentence.

From yesterday's hearings at the D.C. council on equality, Ernestine Copeland's 6:18 of fame.

This is what Blanche believes, and how she "justifies" discrimination. Unlike Ernestine, Blanche isn't honest enough to say it.

Enjoy.

"Where WOULD you put BTs in the fight for equality, Sister- ?"

Good question, Norma. I honestly don't know.

My heart bleeds for the Ts because they are persecuted far more than I could ever imagine. But I still don't completely understand why they were put under the same "equality umbrella'' as the LGs.

I don't know a great deal about the Ts but I would assume a majority would identify with heterosexuals after their gender reassignment. Take Chaz Bono, for example. He has just completed the process and still has a girlfriend. So, Chaz is a heterosexual and has nothing in common with my fight other than our two groups are discriminated against.

What if bigamists and polygamists want marriage rights? Are the LGs supposed to welcome them too? I understand their argument but I don't want to be lumped in with them either.

This may make me seem unfeeling toward the plight of the Ts, but I'm trying to be pragmatic in helping the LGs further their goals.

I want equality for the Ts, just not at my expense.

Norma,

I went for a walk after my last post and began thinking about who/what came up with the LGBT moniker. I don't know for sure but my best guess would be the HRC.

I'm starting to believe the HRC is a worthless organization. Scratch that...I believe the HRC is a worthless organization. They are the largest & most powerful gay lobby, but it is they who refuse to hold Obama's feet to the fire about any of his campaign promises.

Hmmmm, the conspiracy theorist in me smells a rat. When DADT and DOMA are eventually repealed, the HRC's coffers will begin to run dry. It behooves them for Obama to drag this along. Hell, they probably collect even more money when a Republican is in office.

Did the HRC foresee this years ago and toss in the BTs to prolong the fight? Who knows? I do know they're lobbyists who rely almost entirely on contributions from lesbians and gays. I bet the BTs would constitute 1 percent of their fundraising haul.

I guess I'm becoming jaded, Norma. We live in a day where we have a senator (Lincoln) who is known to be bought and she'll likely win a third term. I just don't trust anybody.

I agree with Sister. If they GL community isn't sure how the TBs fit in the grand scheme of things, imagine how confused we heteros can get.
I will say this...women who become men and then get pregnant and go on Oprah touted as a pregnant man don't help things.

KnockKnock,

It's not that I feel the BTs don't fit in "in the grand scheme of things.''

I just don't understand why they're connected to us (LGs). I want equality for the BTs, but I feel it's a different fight.

For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out the Bs' argument in marriage. Do they want the right to marry both sexes? They honestly don't have a dog in our most pressing fight. Therefore, why are they included with us, a la LGBT?

Jeez. Here I am sitting in Chenal waiting for my date to ding-dong me and pick me up and it's like I'm living with millions of others around the world only not in Arkansas in this parallel universe.

KnockKnock, thanks for your posts and your answers on the other thread. Seriously. I too am sorry you decided not to answer my first / last question, but that's fine. I'm grateful you answered what you DID.

Of course, you're right: you will NOT benefit from my personalized fashion tips nor will our Razorbabies learn my invaluable Secret of Charisma. Perhaps another day.

I think, Sister-, that BTs are lumped with LGs simply because they're all sexual-orientation minorities.

I'm not aware of bisexuals or transgendereds marching for marriage rights. Maybe they are, and it's fine with me, but as far as I'm aware they just want freedom from workplace discrimination, etc.

I'm not enamored of the tactic of lumping "bigamists" and "polygamists" together with LGBT equality for the same reason I'm not enamored of the tactic of lumping "pedophiles" and "bestiality" into the fight for same-sex equality.

Bigamists, polygamists, pedophiles and sheep-fuckers have nothing to do with same-sex equality.

I'm surprised you'd try for that spurious connection, frankly.

There are legitimate reasons why bigamy and polygamy are crimes (unlike, say, in backward theocracies in the Middle East.) Same for pedophilia and bestiality. SOMEBODY's got to protect the kids and goats. Okay. That's redundant. Children and goats.

That we, much less our "leaders," are discussing human sexual diversity at the level of schoolyard adolescents instead of knowledgeable adults -- namely, "If you stick it THERE, you're not an equal American!" "If you get in bed with THAT one, you're not an equal American!" "If you love anybody my religion doesn't okay, you're not an equal American!"

Sorry, Sister-. America's been reduced to bullies on playgrounds yelling, "You're so gay" and "faggot" at each other. Only these are grownups in Congress. Pathetic.

I don't know. I don't mind the BTs riding on the LGs coattails. They're not the same thing, but hey: ANYTHING to get sexually shell-shocked Americans to THINK -- and join, say, Western Europe in sexual equality.

This is about Theocracy and nothing more. Religionists (including our now-Catholic Supreme Court) are determined to take over America through their infiltration of the government, law enforcement, the military, and education.

You're probably right, Sister-.

LG Americans would stand a faster chance of gaining Constitutional equality without the association with BT Americans, but . . . could you look in the mirror in the morning?

I couldn't.

I'm for America growing up and getting real about human sexuality. That's all.

Oops! Ding-dong!

Gotta run!

Sistertoldja,

The LGBT acronym goes way, way back. There's evidence of it from the late sixties, although that usage died out and didn't resurface until much later. My church uses LGBTQ, without specifying whether the Q is for Queer or Questioning.

Anyway, let me tell you a story.

Many years ago, the city of Fayetteville had a recycling co-ordinator, Vickie Kelley. Vickie was (and still is) a lesbian. One day, she went on the Phil Donahue show and came out. The city of Fayetteville promptly fired her.

Fayetteville liberals were outraged. How dare she endanger the recycling program in that manner! How irresponsible she was! How dare she! (What, you expected them to fight for her? "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.")

Fast forward the tape to right now and ask yourself what the difference is between those heterosexist liberals' treatment of Vickie Kelley and your attitude. (I like you a hell of a lot better than I ever liked them, and I have faith in your conscience, so don't take that personal, okay? When you want to get together for that beer, put a comment on my blog that says "Call me". I'll nab your email and disapprove the post, so your email address doesn't become public and thus spambait.)

Whether we agree or not, Norma, your posts always put a smile on my face. Your talent for the written word amazes me.

Your content, dear friend, is sometimes lacking.

You say, "LG Americans would stand a faster chance of gaining Constitutional equality without the association with BT Americans, but . . . could you look in the mirror in the morning?

I couldn't."

That's certainly easy for you to say, Norma. It's not your back on which we're carrying the BTs.

I'll give you another bad analogy. It's the 1960s and blacks are fighting for equal rights. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the LGs show up and we're now the NAACPLG.

The blacks would say, "Where in the hell did these LGs come from? This is the NAACP?''

You, Norma, would say, "But hey, it's all about equality. You blacks need to get over it. We're fighting for the greater good against a theocracy.''

I have no more in common with a transgendered person than I do with a black person. I have no clue about either.

Therefore, I'm fighting for LG rights, not LGBT rights. Make sense?

I'll dig in the archives for your response.

Hugs,

Sistertoldja

John A,

I don't understand how you equate me with them? Please explain.

And no, I don't take any offense. I just don't understand your point.

Sistertoldja,

Those Fayetteville liberals mostly didn't hate lesbians. They just didn't think Vickie Kelley's right to exist was nearly so important as their recycling center, and so they hung her out to dry when she so desparately needed her support.

The analogy continues: Vickey Kelley supported the liberals' cause of recycling, just as many bisexual and transgendered people support the cause of gay marriage. (A cause not all gays and lesbians support.) Some transgendered people want to be in same-sex relationships. Consider the wonderful writer Patrick Califia, formerly sex advice columnist for The Advocate, who transitioned female-to-male, as did his then-female partner. To the best of my knowledge, they're still together.

By the way, it's interesting you came up with the NAACPLG argument. Do you know the story of Bayard Rustin? This isn't too bad a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin . (One thing it glides over is that when his arrest for " 'sex perversion' (as consensual sodomy was officially referred to in California at the time)" occurred, he was in a car with two men, not just one. I don't know the precise details of who was doing what.)

Anyway, the civil rights movement lost a lot by not having the fullest services of Bayard Rustin. ("Johnnie," I hear you asking, "is there anything you don't think you know all about?" I'm sure there is, but I can't think of it just now.)

Like I said before, people have a right to whatever consensual sex life and domestic arrangements they prefer, period. That human freedom is a cause worth fighting for.

I care much more about that than about gay marriage. Marriage really should be a strictly religious matter--my church will marry you and WBW today, Sistertoldja. Let me know if you want to rent the hall--without any state involvement. For that, civil unions--for gay and straight alike--is the much better solution. However, that's not how it's shaking out in this country, and so I'll support gay marriage since so many gays and lesbians want it, even though I personally think it's sub-optimal.

That level of solidarity is what I urge you to feel. Solidarity, mutual support, risking our own well-being in the pursuit of the well-being of others, that's how we on the bottom of society impose our will on those who seek to keep us down.

John A,

I like you, and I think you're sincere.

I'm more interested in the rights that come with marriage, as opposed to the vows in a church. My Episcopalian friends extended the same offer, to which WBW said, "What's the point? It doesn't give us any rights.'' Exactly.

We're not into any ceremony or church. When it's legalized, we'll go to the courthouse and get legal. That will be it. We're not into pomp.

Now, John, I extend this offer. We'll be celebrating an occasion tomorrow at either Ciao, the Fountain or Pizza D. If you come to LR and yell, "Sistertoldja'' I'll come up to you and hug your neck. Plus, I'll buy you a beer.

Well, Sister-

I love and support you and ALL LGBT Americans in full Constitutional equality. I've already agreed that including Bi- and Transgendered Americans makes it more "difficult" for Lesbians and Gays to win Constitutional equality. That's morally wrong yet undeniably pragmatic.

But here's where we part company, Sister-, in a deeply fundamental and, to me, troubling way.

You say:

"I have no more in common with a transgendered person than I do with a black person. I have no clue about either."

One either experiences all human diversity in one's life and identifies as a fellow human being with every other . . . and speaks and acts from that "clue," Sister- , that knowledge and empathy . . . or one doesn't.

You don't, you say. You "have no clue," you say.

I'm sort of stunned. I thought I knew and understood you a bit, from here. Guess not.

You say you have no more in common with a transgendered person than you do with a black person.

Are YOU not, like they, fundamentally a human being deserving of equality?

Your "commonality" with other human beings depends on their color? Your acceptance of their gender-identity?

You "have no clue about either" blacks or transgendered people and therefore have "no more in common" with them?

Maybe you don't MEAN those things, Sister-. But that's what we're stuck with. That's what you've said.

All right, Sister-. having "no clue" about human beings unlike yourself is simple ignorance, inexperience, lack of exposure to diverse people. How could anybody not have a "clue" about blacks, transgendered, gays and lesbians, bisexuals, those of other faiths or no faiths -- unless you've never known any -- and never acknowledged their common humanity and Constitutional worth equal to yours?

You've nothing in "common" with them?

I'm not gay or lesbian or black or bisexual or transgendered . . . but BOY do I care about their full equality as Americans . . . since legalizing their discrimination makes America a theocracy . . . a fundamentalist "Christian" theocracy . . . no different from fundamentalist "Muslim" theocracies in the bloody Middle East.

Per your own words, Sister-, you have nothing in common with those "other" people, so let them fight for equality on their own. Your plate's full. You don't have "a clue" about them. You've got your priorities. "US" first.

Got it.

Gee, Sister-, I've known and loved gays, lesbians, blacks, bisexual, transgendered (not too many 'cause they're the minority of minorities, but I've known 'em) all my adult life. I've LOTS of "clues" about those people who are vastly different than I and I fight FOR and WITH them every day.

I don't understand how you can't empathize with human beings you think you have nothing "in common" with, and fight for their equality as righteously as for your own.

But, hey: that's ball games.

Then you continue:

"Therefore, I'm fighting for LG rights, not LGBT rights. Make sense?"

No, Sister-, it DOESN'T make sense, except from a thoroughly narrow and selfish standpoint. Gays and Lesbians, like you, are worth the fight for equality. Bs and Ts, not so much 'cause you can't identify with 'em. Or, apparently, with blacks.

Uh, okay.

That's bigotry and prejudice, Sister-. Just like the right wing I thought rational thinking people scorned. Same thing, just flipped.

If I, Norma Bates, were to take your position, Sister-, I'd ignore the human rights issue of legal same-sex equality rather than hoisting it up the flagpole every chance I get.

I'd ignore the world's six countries that have it; the six American states that have it; I'd ignore you and WBW like I had nothing in "common" with you; I'd ignore Martin Luther King's assassination 'cause I'm not black so who cares.

Then you say, Sister- : "I'll dig in the archives for your response."

You don't have to dig anywhere, Sister-. This post is my response.

I don't know. Somehow I thought you'd be on board fighting for equality for ALL Americans and not just SOME.

Well, Sister-, I learned long ago to smile, shrug and walk away from this sort of thing.

All my best to you, WBW and LGBT Americans.

I have to chime in on this thread, and I'm disappointed at "Sister" with her posts on this thread. I do have a dog in this fight...

Its bad enough the T's catch hell in this state from the religious-right establishment of this state. Its another to be used as a pawn and bargaining chip by some old-guard Gays/Lesbians in their pragmatic and what some would consider even selfish, short-term goals.

Joe Solmonese went before the Southern Comfort Conference (which is the largest Transgender convention in the US) in 2007 and fed those people a lie of how the Human Rights Campaign would support an ENCUSIVE ENDA in 2007 that would include gender identity and gender expression. Well, Barney Frank in what some call a pragmatic move, perhaps selfish introduced a Gay-Only ENDA bill. Well, that move showed the true colors of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as they supported despite Solmonese empty words that crippled version of ENDA. The T's were pissed, and rightly so. HRC never has been a T group...they are basicly a reincarnation of the Mattachine Society.

Did the Mattachine's fight back at Stonewall...of course not, it was all those "T's" out on the front lines. The same ones that the G/L establishment threw under the bus a few years later in an effort to assimilate.

I'm glad you see that even you "Sister" see the true colors of HRC. When I watched the video of President Obama speak before the HRC, the crowd at that HRC dinner was mostly male, mostly white, wealthy, and cisgender. HRC never gave a damn about the T's and never will.

I'm in the T spectrum....I also know T's that are on a transitioning path that for various reason (financial, and medical) that cannot have gender reassignment surgery. Some T's I know that are transistioning are what is called "stealth", partly because of the discrimination from the straight as well as some more conservative elements of the G/L community. Stealth is a move that is pragmatic. Another is just to hide and just be closeted, and stick to "dressing up" at home or at certain venues.

Its a fact that "pre-op" or non-op T's (especially male to female) are also discriminated against as to whom they can marry. See the fight over marriage isn't just a "Gay" issue. Neither is the fight over ENDA. What about gays and lesbians that are cisgender (not trans) but instead of being "straight acting/dressing" instead dress in a way that is non-gender conforming? Are they entitled to the same protections that the only the "straight acting" GL's would get under a crippled ENDA that Barney Frank introduced and HRC supported in 2007?

We don't need a civil war over the fight over equity....we need allies. Its not 1975 anymore.

Gosh, Norma, you act as if I've said that I'm against equality for the transgendered.

Let me repeat, I WANT EQUALITY FOR THE TRANSGENDERED!!!!!!!!!!

You skewer me because of semantics, specifically when I said, "I don't have a clue...."

Let me rephrase...I don't know as much about the struggle for equality the transgendered and African Americans face as well as I know my own.

There are lots of things/people and I can't personally identify with (i.e., the starving children in Darfur, Fox News viewers, or DBI's voracious sex drive).

Granted, I don't know enough about the Ts and I'm glad Ms. Haley is around to further my education. Again, that doesn't mean that I don't want equality for the transgendered.

The LGs and BTs want the same thing. I just think they're different fights.