The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Various figures reported. The Register says 150 in attendance; KCCI TV says about 100. After a nap, I've been having fun relying to some of the comments at the paper's website--usual religious bigotry and homophobia present, but not in overwhelming proportions. Thanks to a Catholic education, I can quote Scripture to defend the cause. Also threw in the old chant: "We're here. We're queer. Get used to it."
At City Hall, I held a sign for one woman named Robbie Adelman who brought two and was also trying to juggle a camera. (She appears in the Register's gallery of the event.) The one she gave me said, "Make History Again: Let Gays Marry." I think it's in One Iowa's office now.
A good variety of speakers, including a local Unitarian pastor, the head of Iowa's ACLU chapter, nearly everybody from One Iowa, an openly gay state senator, Iowa's only married same-sex couple, and Ed Fallon! I was really pleased to see him there, and he was quite rousing in the teeth of the gale (I'm on Fallon's email list, and he solicited ideas, so I replied with the info about today's events--he should be careful what he wishes for. He may get it.)
Added poll results below, though I realize the respondents are self-selecting. The numbers are heartening.
I tried to bring this up during our last phone call, but the conversation went another way, as conversations are wont to do. The pressure of events moves me to return to it here, in a format that should minimize the drift. So I'll tell you again: I feel the time is coming when you will be confronted with a choice to vote for or against my civil rights. What is more, your Church or some of its members are highly likely to weigh in on the matter. The "culture wars" are heating up, and I fear we may find ourselves on opposite sides.
A précis follows, in case you haven't been keeping up with events: Here in Iowa, several same-sex couples filed a lawsuit challenging the state's definition of civil marriage (Varnum vs. Brien). The judge who heard the case found for the plaintiffs on equal protection and due process grounds. One couple managed to get married before the judge stayed his ruling, pending the decision of the state Supreme Court. That court accepted the case and received amicus briefs from various parties (including two former female lieutenant governors and church groups on both sides); oral arguments are set for 9 December of this year. In January, Gov. Culver told a reporter the if the high court upholds the lower court's decision, he will ask the legislature to overturn the ruling by amending the state constitution-even if this means recalling a departed Assembly to gather in special session for the purpose.
Meanwhile, a similar case worked its way through the courts in California. In May, that state's highest court found for the same-sex couples, and weddings were performed starting in June. Though thousands of couples married (I've heard figures ranging from 11,000 to 18,000), opponents of gay rights sought to thwart the judiciary and put a proposition on the ballot to strip the right to marry from same-sex couples, thereby putting minority rights to a majority vote. With support from Catholic and Mormon churches among others, Proposition 8 passed by a small majority, and protests have since been held in many cities. I shall join such a protest here in Des Moines in a few hours' time.
Beyond this, I cannot give a precise timeline. In California, the high court has asked for documents in the case; there are a number a lawsuits alleging the proposition, in seeking to enact a change that conflicts with the equal protection guarantee, amounts to a revision of the document; revisions, under the terms of that constitution, must be passed by the legislature first. Here in Iowa, the high court ruling isn't expected until some time next year. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, Culver will no doubt make good his threat. An amendment to the Iowa Constitution must pass the legislature twice before going to the voters for approval; a simple majority is then sufficient to ratify it.
If you have read this far, I expect you have a cascade of objections going through your mind. Perhaps you've even given voice to one or more of them, much as I mutter "a pleasing stream of the old rancid" when I find my predecessor has left the booth radio tuned to Rush Limbaugh. I propose to address as many of your objections as I can anticipate below; feel free to raise any other objections you may have.
You may think all of this is far away, in time or in space. I grant you that California a a couple of thousand miles from here; it is also true that it will take some time to amend Iowa's constitution. Yet the foes of gay rights will not wait and bide their time. They have been castigating people like me for decades, and they will not hold their tongues while the matter is discussed in the courts. There are funds to be raised and fears to be mongered and outrage to be incited. The fear and the outrage can then be tapped for more money and for volunteer labor-yielding the email trees, the phonebanks, the books and videos, and all the efforts to drive home the notion that homosexuals are sick, evil, perverse, predatory, and generally a threat to civilization and an affront to God. Lest you think I'm indulging in hyperbole, this history is amply and continually being documented; you can easily find the sources for yourself, though I will provide you with a list if you wish. (I have to warn you: much of it is not pleasant reading.)
What is more, the problem is not so very distant. Though only a few couples have sued, there are many more right here in Iowa. Consider one of my bosses (a black woman, as it happens) and her partner. They've been together for 24 years, yet legally they are strangers to each other. If the employer of one of them extends health insurance to both, the IRS will tax the partner's benefit as if it were income. They must spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on wills and other documents because they have no recognized right to make medical decisions for each other and no right of intestate succession-and those documents so dearly bought can be challenged in court by any blood relative who can't accept their recently departed family member was gay. If they go on vacation and one of them becomes ill or injured, they are at the mercy of whatever visitation policy the local ER chooses to apply, and they must be sure to bring their raft of documents (medical powers of attorney, etc.) to justify their relationship. All of this merely scratches the surface; there are over a thousand rights, now denied to same-sex couples no matter how long they have been together, that come with civil marriage.
Notice I said civil marriage. The foes of same-sex marriage intentionally elide this point. They claim that their rights would be violated, that they would be forced to perform same-sex marriages in their churches. When they say these things, they lie. They lie. Full stop. None of the lawsuits seek to redefine religious definitions of marriage. No civil court would order that, even if it could. The mere fact that clergy have been given a civil authority ("...by the power vested in me by the state of...") does not make the marriage wholly religious, nor does it mean that the tenets of the religion override the civil law (if that were so, you could still be married to Dad). What is more, they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Mormons cannot stop Starbucks™ from selling coffee and tea because they disapprove of caffeine consumption. Orthodox Jews and Muslims cannot outlaw pork tenderloins or sausage, and kosher requirements cannot keep you from having a pepperoni pizza. In fact, they don't even get to banish such practices from public spaces.
And that's really the main point. There's a distinction between the religious sphere and the civic one, and some people, for feelings of insecurity or out of a desire for power, hate and deny that distinction. Right wingers gleefully rewrite history, claiming that "America is a Christian nation." On that basis, they think they can ignore or ride roughshod over the rights and concerns of people who follow a minority religion or no religion at all. Worse yet, their tribalistic us-versus-them worldview needs some group to be cast as outsiders to reinforce their precarious sense of identity. You and your fellow Catholics may feel comfortable allying with the Christian Dominionist crowd, but many of them, especially those in some of the Protestant groups, are hostile to Mormons and Catholics among others. (Hagee ring a bell? Google his name if not.) If the precedent set by the vote in California is allowed to stand, if one unpopular minority can have their rights stripped away by the vote of a tyrannical majority, other minorities will face a similar fate. "When they finish with us, they will find reason to come after you. And they will say that you have given them reason." (Nava and Dawidoff, Created Equal, p. 164)
? ? ? ?
I must say I'm uncertain what you believe. I've heard you object when I refer to myself as "queer," but I'm not sure if you regard the word as scatological, or if you cannot bring yourself to accept that I am not straight. Perhaps it's a bit of both.¹ When I think back to a conversation we had before I came out to you (which you may not recall) in which you likened homosexuality to alcoholism and I likened it to left-handedness, I get no further. Was your reply ("Hey!") so swift and so loud because you are left-handed? In other words, was the comparison so odious to you that you couldn't let it pass? Did you-do you now believe all the invective and vitriol that has been hurled against people like me?
I will admit here that I made the comparison intentionally, partly to try to answer those questions, partly to drive the point home, and partly because I found the comparison apt.² Yet your response, while indicating your discomfort, gave me no real clue to your specific feelings on the subject. It seemed prudent to let you make the next move, so instead of coming out to you with some dramatic announcement, I chose to wait for you to ask the question. I told myself you would ask when you were ready for the answer. Eventually you asked and I answered, but you also told me you were more disappointed that I left the Church.³ Can you really have expected me to stay in a church that regards me as "intrinsically disordered"? Did you think I would endure such inherent hostility as my "cross to bear"?
? ? ? ?
The other day on the phone you said, "But...Free will!" Where do I begin unpacking that phrase? Among your fellow Catholics, it begins to look as if free will isn't free. Actually, it looks as if the Vatican is taking a page from the conservative Protestant playbook. For several years, some Catholic clergy have advocated denying sacraments to Catholic public officials who espouse a pro-choice stand (Kerry faced this in 2004, and Biden's bishop has restated the principle). Today I read of a priest in South Carolina telling parishioners who voted for Obama that they should not seek Communion until they sought absolution for their vote. I realize not every priest is so doctrinaire, but for all I know you have been similarly admonished-or you soon will be. The Vatican tends to make a very grave pronouncement whenever gay people get their rights recognized somewhere, and the old phrases ("intrinsically disordered" and all the rest of it) get trotted out for the occasion. Does this not smack of coercion? And will they let you off with a few "Hail Marys" and a few "Our Fathers" should you fail to vote according to the Church's teachings?
In a strange way, you might one day enter my world. Should you be faced with a ballot that asks you to amend this state's constitution in the same way as the voters of California were, you will have several options. You could vote in favor or not at all without telling me (how would I know, given the secret ballot?) You could vote against it and face the prospect of bringing the decision to the confessional. No doubt the topic will arise when you meet with your fellow parishioners or when you talk to the rest of the family. Then you will face a choice: to stand up for what you believe in the face of hostility and derision, or to hide what you believe in so that you can avert the social consequences. Even if you never discuss the matter, that choice will be there, and you will have to make a decision, one way or the other.
Though all the economic punditry has been going on at length comparing our present predicament to that which Americans faced in the 1930's, the new President-Elect seems to prefer bringing up Abraham Lincoln. As it happens, I've been replaying my DVDs of Ken Burns' The Civil War (not having the wherewithal for cable), and I have tried to attend the descriptions of Lincoln in particular. The comparison may be as apt as Barack Obama supposes.
In an effort to make some productive use of my insomnia, I'm dashing off another contribution to Mombian's efforts against California's Proposition 8. After giving the matter some thought, the only unifying theme I can muster is reflected in this diary entry's title. Although the issue has been discussed and debated for several years, some things are either minimized or untouched.
Voiceover: "It's the phone call every parent dreads."
Four people (3 women and one man) take urgent phone calls on their cell phones. They each leave their jobs to drive to the local hospital.
At the hospital, the man and a woman meet, reach out to each other as they hurry inside the ER entrance. Then the other two women meet in the same foyer and also hurry inside. Both couples have a worried exchange: "What happened?" "Is she all right?" "Where have they taken her?" "Has the doctor seen her?" etc.
The hetero couple arrive at the ER desk, give their names and are conducted quickly inside. The lesbian couple arrive at the ER desk and ask about their child. The nurse/clerk asks, "Which of you is the mother?" "Well, we both are." Dispute arises between the couple and the clerk, with a dismissal of the civil union, etc. Demands are made for documentation, and one of the women is told she cannot go inside. "Family only." Much arguing follows, and the clerk threatens to call security. Finally, one woman goes in to see the child and the other is left at the desk, shown through sliding glass doors crying in frustration.
The hetero couple is seen in passing shot, thanking physician and standing by child's bedside, looking partly relieved. The lesbian parent gets her news from the doctor, and goes to her child in another bed.
Child: "Mama?"
Woman:"I'm here, baby. You're gonna be just fine."
Child: (Looking and reaching)"Mama, where's Nana?"
Woman (Glances at hetero couple, stammers): "They, uh, only let one at a time back here." (She moves to block child's view of other family, says brightly) "We can't get in the nurses' way."
Child: "But I want you and Nana."
Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making that state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
Justices overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
I haven't had time to read the entire decision, but here's what I'd call the "money quote" from the decision.
I walked into the convention hall today, on my way to the LGBT Caucus (and on my way to pick up a credential to get me into the Pepsi Center today), when I saw San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome. After what he did in San Francisco, and what came of it on the California Supreme Court, I couldn't just pass him by. (It didn't hurt that he was taller and more handsome in person than he is in his pictures.) I had to stop and thank him.
I told him, I was just on my way to the LGBT caucus and that just wanted to stop and thank him. To which he responded "Thank you!" One of his aides overheard me say where I was going, and invited me to walk with them since they were going to the LGBT caucus too.
And then we stepped into the hall, and heard the announcement that Del Martin just passed away. She died quietly, surrounded by her family and friends. There was a gasp, and a moment of stunned silence.
And as I thought about Del, I realized that before she died she got to do something that perhaps she never thought she would: after 55 years together, she got to marry the woman she loved. Something Gavin Newsome helped happen, and something that some people with deep-pockets want to keep us from doing.
I thought the columnist I mentioned earlier took the cake in terms of the religious right's hysterical response to the California marriage ruling. Boy was I wrong.
Ed has posted two World Nut Daily columns that leave me pretty much staring in open-mouthed wonder. It's the kind of thing you have to read to believe, but once I did I was left with a question or two which I'll pose at the end of this post.
I don't want to portray all conservatives as drooling dimwits, but good grief do they make it hard to avoid. Sometimes there's just nothing I can do about it. Do these people read? Crack open a dictionary, maybe? Or some book other than the bible? Maybe hit Wikipedia or something before sounding off about an issue?
As if it isn't bad enough to get one of those thanks-but-no-thanks letters in today's post, I get to read about Governor Culver's promise to bring up an anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the state's constitution. It seems that he wants to get this done if the Iowa Supreme Court decision doesn't turn out the way he wants. He'll call a special session if the wrong decision comes down after the regular legislative session ends.
The sad part is the guy is a Democrat, and marriage equality is in the state party's platform. I had my misgivings when he was running for his current job--I even preferred Fallon before the nomination went to Culver. It really bites to have my worst fears confirmed now that Chet is in office.
Still, I'm not planning to move. Time was, my friends and I seriously discussed going ex-pat. Canada is close, but cold. How's your French? Can I learn Dutch? Can you picture the official's face when you try for political asylum from the US? Now, with explicit civil rights protections in the Iowa Code (that fact itself a wonder to behold) and with friends as well as family here, I'm inclined to paraphrase an old protest chant: " I'm here. I'm queer. Get used to it!"
Now that the Iowa caucuses are over, I've noticed posts on several of the blogs on my regular reading list with titles blaring "So-and-So for President" or "Why I'm Supporting Such-and-Such," followed by reasons why candidate This-and-That deserves even more support. I guess it's to be expected, now that the presidential campaign has begun in earnest.
However, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon, for a couple of reasons. First, I've already declared who I'm supporting in the primaries. And, second, I already know my candidate isn't going to get the nomination, because he doesn't even have the support of progressives who hold the same positions he does.
I know, because a few weeks ago I sat around with some other progressives, talking about the election, the issues, and the candidates. Once we went through all the issues, someone asked the question that was hanging in the air, or at least it was in my mind. "So if he's right on all of the issues, why isn't Kucinich our guy?" The question got the typical response, but it left another question looming in my mind. If we aren't voting for what we want, what are we voting for? More to the point, who are we voting for?
The most astounding assumption is that everyone should have children. This despite the abundant evidence that there an untold numbers of people who’ve already had children probably shouldn’t be parents, if the results of their parenting thus far is any indication. There are undoubtedly more who realize they may not be parent material and thus avoid becoming parents. Would the author have them become parents too, and subject children yet unborn to living with parents who may not want the, or who may even be neglectful or abusive?
That’s the unspoken but fundamental point in his argument, as well as many on the same side. The assumption is that people who marry and have children should do so within the context of the faith that he practices. Because, if they do so and do it right, there won’t be any abuse or neglect. Just like if all women surrendered to their husbands, there wouldn’t be any domestic abuse so long as they’ve married “godly men.”
It’s an ideal that has nothing to do with reality, because there will never be a time when everyone practices the author’s idealized brand of Christianity. But it seems so obvious to him how wonderful it would be if everyone would, that he can remain oblivious to the unhappiness that is bound to result from attempting to force everyone into a one-size-fits-all family unit.
After all happiness, the human variety at least, isn’t the point.
One after the other conservatives from Huckabee right down to the Maryland Court of Appeals will apply the procreative imperative as a supremely logical (in their eyes) reason to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples: if gays are accepted and not discriminated against, and same-sex couples allowed to marry and be treated like any other family, human beings will stop having babies altogether, and civilization will crumble.
People everywhere have some "first question" they ask someone new, as means of sussing out who they're dealing with. In New York (I'm told) the first thing people ask when they meet you is "Where do you live?" In Washington, DC, it's "What do you do?" or, if you're dealing with some who's not exactly subtle it's "Where do you work?" or "Who do you work for?" In the minds of the people asking the questions, your answer is a window into where you've been, what you've accomplished, and — most importantly — who you are.
In the south, where I come from, the question is actually much more direct; "Who are your people?" If you know what's meant by the question, your answer will be something like "Well, my father was a so-and-so and my mother was a such-and-such, but her mother was a something-or-other." This recital of family ties may go back a few generation, and may elicit subtle but knowing responses from the querent because they have essentially asked "Who are your kin?", and by answering them, you've told them something about yourself. Where you can almost see New Yorkers and Washingtonians riffling through their mental rolodexes, in the south you can see the scrolls of memory unfurled as family names recall family histories and even (in some cases) epics.
Why? Because you're kin, whose name carry, says something about who you are. Or who they think you are, because you don't choose your kin or your family name for the most part. Unless you marry, that is. And, depending on your gender, tradition has it that you lose your family name and take that of your husband's family. Unless you're in California, and then he can take yours.
Four years after same-sex marriage became a reality here in Massachusetts, the Human Rights Campaign has posted it's youth outreach coordinator to Boston, to help defeat the measure before the constitutional convention (we call it the concon) that would put gay marriage on the 2008 ballot.
Since the HRC is new in town, I thought that I'd introduce them to some of the players in this long running drama. First, there is Mary Bonauto and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who represented the Goodwin plantiffs. If you're serious about same-sex marriage, these are the folks that get it done. MassEquality has been keeping us organized and the pressure on. The Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marryanswers back when the homophobes start banging on their bibles. Know Thy Neighbor posted the names of everyone who signed the petition that brought this ballot measure to the legislature (a whole story unto itself!). And there are folks like Byron Rushing, state rep from the 9th Suffolk district, who's been with us every step of the way, and Carl Sciortino, who showed that anti-gay marriage legislators could be defeated.
On the other side are the usual suspects. The Archdiocese of Boston (the Pope's people) wants gay marriage to go down in flames, but they've been pretty busy selling church property to settle the suits that came out of the clergy sex abuse scandal. Mitt Romney was here for a while. He's gone now, but he did everything he could to rain on our parade. Vote on Marriage wants the people to decide who should get married (which I think is a great idea - you can vote on my marriage if I can vote on your marriage). And then, on the outer edge of reality is MassResistance - these folks really foam at the mouth.
I'm leaving a lot out (like I said, the show's been in town for awhile, so there's lots of backstory), but this should get the HRC started. Maybe they'll help take it on the road.
(I also highly recommend Courting Equality, published by Beacon Press ($34.95). I was moved by the stories and images of everyday couples who won the battle to have their relationships acknowledged in the eyes of the law. It is an inspiring work, capturing a moment in time when anything seemed possible. Courting Equality also shows us how much of a journey lies ahead around the country in the struggle for equality. Patricia A. Gozemba, Karen Kahn, and Marilyn Humphries have given us a gift to relish, particularly those of us in Red State America, who long for that legal recognition and feeling of elation experienced by so many in Massachusetts back in 2003. As we all know, Bay Staters continue to fight off those who wish to vote marriage rights for same-sex couples away. Visit the web site for the book. - promoted by pam)
Courting Equality: A Documentary History of America's First Legal Same-Sex Marriages is a glossy, large-format work, but to call it a coffee-table book is to do it an injustice. The text by Patricia A. Gozemba and Karen Kahn, and the photographs by Marilyn Humphries, tell the mesmerizing story of the fight for marriage equality in Massachusetts. The book is at once a celebration, a history, and a reminder that we are all still writing a final chapter.
Whether you live in Massachusetts or elsewhere, you will find much in the volume to inform and uplift. The book opens, after an introductory overview, on the day of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health decision that legalized same-sex marriage. The authors take us through the initial reactions of Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney on the case, and the seven plaintiff couples as they hasten to the press conference.
I've referenced Stephanie Coontz's book, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, before and am looking through it now to pull some passages for reference in an upcoming post. Of the books I've read on marriage, Coontz's is the most comprehensive take on how the "institution" has changed with every social change that's come down the pike. In fact, it's been in a constant state of flux. If you don't read any other book on the history of marriage, I'd recommend Coontz's book.
...and continues to slide backwards into the Middle Ages.
Interesting how ever since I was a little girl growing up in Indiana, everyone always argued about what "Hoosier" (as in "Hoosier State") actually meant. Well, all I can say is, now we know...it means "bigot."
(Or, to be fair, it means that the majority of the people in the state are bigots...)
Senate OKs same-sex marriage ban
Public will vote on amendment if it passes House unchanged
A proposed ban on same-sex marriages now faces just one more hurdle in the House before Hoosiers will be able to vote on the constitutional amendment.
The Indiana Senate voted 39-10 Monday to pass the amendment, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
State law already bans same-sex marriages, but supporters of the constitutional amendment have maintained their measure would prevent activist judges from changing that law.
"By passing this amendment, we are giving the people the right to decide whether the definition of marriage should be preserved and put beyond the reach of the courts," said Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield.
...blah, blah, blah; these stories all start to sound alike after awhile, don't they (Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Virginia, etc...).
I find Brandt Hershman to be a most pompous ass...and I was rather surprised to see his picture in the state legislature website. He was young, and quite fresh-faced to be such a spearheading Hoosier bigot.
