BlogHer - ENDA - Comments

Where's the...

nelle2nelle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:46:02 -0500

lack of balance?

When Massachusetts turned on the lights for same sex marriage, and Gavin Newsom brought San Franciscans his version of Prague Spring, there was momentum for change. Nerws coverage was showing regular looking people getting married to someone of the same sex. They looked just like anyone else, no horns, no feather boas, they weren't jumping each other's bones on the street. We met Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons, who met the year before I was born - and you know that was a lonnnnnnnnnnng time ago.

And then came Barney flipping Frank. Just as he did a year ago with the legislation on discrimination and selling tg folk under the bus, Barney had to go shoot his mouth off publicly about how this all was harming progress on rights.

Pfffffffffffffffffffftttttttt... the air came out of that balloon, you could feel it, you could sense it.

Maybe it was too much too quick, but what an incredibly inopportune time for him to turn tail and run. I lost respect for him on that day, and he lost the rest of it last fall.

People will hem and haw on same sex marriage. There will be those who will never budge... but when it comes to the same protections, law that would prevent this sort of ugly incident from happening would be quite likely to pass. It shouldn't be shoved under a rug and a chair placed over it as we entertain for votes. What's the big lump in the rug?

That's what has been happening, exactly what Democrats have done. They create The Big Lump In The Rug, they try to pretend it isn't there, and when their guests are otherwise preoccupied, they whisper 'don't worry, we've got you covered' to the rug.

nelle

There's your idealism showing again

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:18:17 -0500

Darn, and here I'd begun to think you were finding a balance. Heh. You are looking through those rose colored glasses again, my friend.

What leads you to believe "People are sufficiently discerning and intelligent as to see a subset of the immigration issue,"?
None of the current candidates for president will go out on the limb on this issue.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Obviously I disagree

nelle2nelle — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:57:32 -0500

People are sufficiently discerning and intelligent as to see a subset of the immigration issue, one that is a technicality, albeit a significant one. The issue exists, it is harming people in real time, and Americans would relate to families which if hetero would have no issue, but if gay they do.

I give them more credit for being able to see the problem, which is why I believe they should face it down, not run. Running makes them look like they are trying to pull something sneaky.

nelle

Don't lump GLBT in with Immigration

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:31:45 -0500

This is our problem - we're so busy trying to get people to see what's fair that we use an already flawed system to be for equal rights.

Linking ourselves with immigration is a horrible idea. Even many of the most LIBERAL of CONSERVATIVES will balk on gay rights when you start talking about how all of these immigrants will come in when gay marriage is legal. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Immigration is a huge issue (nelle, look at our very conservative SC friend and her home depot rant...), don't link glbt rights to it or you may never get them.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

He is? Really? How so?

Denise — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:28:09 -0500

my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

How is he ahead of the curve compared to anyone else? He's shown leadership in this area, how?

It's all talk - from both him and Senator Clinton.

GLBT issues should not be issues in this electio because we do not yet have a liberal candidate who is willing (or able) to be brave or bold. Regardless of what Senator Obama (or Senator Clinton) would like us to believe.

The conservatives concerned about homosexual issues can sleep easy, this election and for a good long while, I think.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Obama responded to a similar argument

Kim Pearson — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:37:03 -0500

In the interview with The Advocate that I linked to, Obama likened the fight for same-sex marriage to the effort to end miscegenation laws in the 1960s. He acknowledged that his parents' marriage was illegal in parts of the US. The interviewer suggested that for that reason, he should be even more vocal about the marriage issue. That led to this exchange:

[The Advocate:] Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.

But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?

[The Advocate]: True enough.

As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Thank you...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:49:21 -0500

We've come a long way, but right now I wonder if feminists in around say... 1900 felt this way about the right to vote coming to pass. Which basically is while there is progress, not good enough.

IMO, Democrats have hurt themselves by trying to difuse the issue by trying to reassure on marriage whilst simultaneously laying out what they support to us. They appear on LOGO and casually say why they are going to do great things - yet also outline a programme that still leaves us second class citizens.

Had they taken the approach of standing by full rights, and taking the time to explain why, I'd bet more Americans than many think would see that as reasonable and fair. The problem is no one has really taken the time, in a setting where much of the country is paying attention, to explain why this makes sense.

If America knew that a friend's partner, legitimately in this nation, a year or so after they bought a home and a business and a couple of years after adopting, received notice they decided it was time she left, back to Norway.

Now they have to divest of both, in this economic climate.

Would America think that fair, given that a hetero couple could marry and end this? A candidate could make that actual happening an issue that registered.

Usually the best way to deal with a problem is to address it square on, not by dancing around it.

nelle

only 8 ?

PhyllisMs — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:19:35 -0500

Thank you for enlightening me. It's comments like yours that help enlighten. In this day of freedom of speech, it also helps to say, "I might have been wrong" so may I recant my statement? Maybe I should say, "at least 8 people commented and maybe that will trun to 64 and...maybe that will...etc., etc.

Update...

nelle2nelle — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:41:46 -0500

From Donna Rose:

I'm told that HRC had lobbyists on the hill for 2 days, actively lobbying legislators to support the SO-only version of the bill that is now primed to move. Given that fact, along with the acknowledged 'deal' that HRC made with Democratic leadership to move the SO only bill forward, some have questioned me as to whether those actions are contrary to the HRC Board's policy as outlined in their Press Release of October 2 (direct quote: "HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.") It would seem so

The full story is on Donna's blog.

nelle

Agreed

nelle2nelle — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:38:04 -0500

This is obviously a passionate subject for many of us. As with any subject, support does not necessarily translate into a written opinion. There are many subjects of interest to me, but I blow hot and cold, depending on mood, on actually writing on them.

HRC is doing some fast footwork now, trying to show it is committed to a full ENDA - at least that email from them in my in box states they are. Do I believe that is carrying the full force of that organisation behind it? No. But what it does suggest is they are feeling the heat, and that heat is coming from the reaction to their initial action.

That means people were talking.

nelle

What do you mean, only 8?

Denise — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:31:24 -0500

I would like to ask you to reconsider your measurement of success and/or interest. Comments are not an indicator of either.

Almost 600 people clicked in to read the post, we don't have a measurement of how many people read the post in an RSS feedreader. Many of us discussed the post, and the topic on our own blogs, on TWitter, in email, in instant message, on SKYPE, on message boards not on BlogHer and with our own families, friends and co-workers.

Please do not judge the BlogHer community members or their commitment to personal freedoms based on blog comments, or lack of them.

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High & Flamingo House Happenings

Personal freedoms

PhyllisMs — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:47:16 -0500

Well, I am disappointed...Only 8 people showed interest in ENDA. Only 8 people on BlogHer showed any interest. I showed interest in personal freedoms when I was a soldier in Viet Nam. Now, sometimes, people are concerned about our soldiers in Iraq. But it's not really. Interest in our soldiers in Iraq is showing an interest after they have returned home. The little yellow bows that have appeared on cars is a copout. That's the extent of their interest, a bow that cost a buck 49, nothing more...I find it's a sad day for the state America...

2 more states?

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:16:12 -0500

Maybe North Carolina and Virginia? Southern Illinois is basically the deep south, so it doesn't surprise me that it didn't pass there in the past.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

One of the reasons...

nelle2nelle — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:51:11 -0500

the remaining states got cold feet when we were so close 25 years ago was the potentially unknown scope of the ERA, and how it would grant protections to lgbt folk.

These are the states yet to ratify:

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

Illinois really surprises me, and think we could win there... but what other two states would be most promising?

nelle

ERA? Yes!

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:09:06 -0500

I've never considered the ERA in such an expansive way. Excellent point, Nelle!

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants